The relationship between the Ottawa Valve Collapse Scale (OVCS) and clinical outcomes in septoplasty patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ottawa Valve Collapse scale (OVCS) was developed to classify the severity of nasal valve collapse (NVC) in patients with nasal obstruction. The goal of this study was to determine, in patients who have nasal obstruction due to a septal deviation, whether those with a higher OVCS grade will have a reduced improvement in patient-centered clinical outcomes at one-year following septoplasty with inferior turbinate diathermy compared to those with a normal or lower OVCS grade. This study was a prospective study of 78 patients who completed an assessment using the NOSE questionnaire before and at one-year following the surgical intervention. A repeated-measures ANOVA was used to asses for differences in scores between OVCS groups. There was a significant improvement in NOSE scores one year post-septoplasty (p < 0.01). There was no difference in NOSE score improvement when comparing the grades of the OVCS at one-year (F = 0.09, p = 0.968). Though the OVCS was designed to categorize the severity of NVC preoperatively, there is no evidence that it is helpful in predicting which patients will demonstrate poor results following septoplasty. Future studies are required to further evaluate the OVCS and whether complimentary assessments will improve its clinical utility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".