Self-Reported Improvement for Chronic Rhinosinusitis Major Symptoms in Patients Treated with Omalizumab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the clinical effect of omalizumab therapy on the symptoms of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated CRS major symptom improvement in patients with CRS on omalizumab therapy and patients who met omalizumab therapy indications, but could not access coverage for omalizumab. Changes in overall chronic rhinosinusitis symptom burden and each of the major symptoms of CRS were rated on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS). The Mann–Whitney test was used to compare the symptom improvement between groups. Results: Omalizumab therapy provided a mean overall symptom improvement of 69.5% (individual symptom improvement: facial pain 78.5%, nasal obstruction 69.8%, rhinorrhea 56.2%, and olfaction 55.8%). For the control group, mean overall symptom improvement since omalizumab screening was 16.8% (individual symptom improvement: rhinorrhea 16.4%, nasal obstruction 15.3%, no improvement in facial pain or olfaction). Overall, and for each major symptom, improvement was significantly greater for omalizumab treated patients (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Omalizumab treatment provided significant improvement in every major clinical symptom of CRS in the treated cohort of patients with recalcitrant CRS, in comparison to the control cohort. A well-designed randomized clinical trial is needed to further assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab treatment for CRS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".