Clinical and Radiological Evaluations of COVID-19 Patients with Anosmia: Preliminary Report.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate clinical and radiological features of olfactory clefts of patients with mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Sixteen COVID-19 patients were recruited. The epidemiological and clinical data were extracted. Nasal complaints were assessed through the sino-nasal outcome test 22 (SNOT-22). Patients underwent psychophysical olfactory testing, olfactory cleft examination and CT-scan. Results: Sixteen anosmic patients were included. The mean Sniffin Sticks score was 4.6+/-1.7. The majority of patients had no endoscopical abnormality, with a mean olfactory cleft endoscopy score of 0.6+/-0.9. The olfactory clefts were opacified in 3 patients on the CT-scan. The mean radiological olfactory cleft score was 0.7+/-0.8. There were no significant correlations between clinical, radiological and psychophysical olfactory testing. Conclusion: The olfactory cleft of anosmic COVID-19 patients is free regarding endoscopic examination and imaging. The anosmia etiology would be not related to edema of the olfactory cleft.
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 | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".