Predictive significance of arachidonate 15-lipoxygenase for eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (ECRSwNP) exhibits a poorer outcome compared with non-eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (nonECRSwNP), so it is significant to identify effective markers to differentiate ECRSwNP in guiding the treatment strategies of these patients. Although arachidonate 15-lipoxygenase (ALOX15) is positioned as a marker of eosinophilic inflammation, its study in differentiating ECRSwNP has not been reported. The aim of this study is to assess the potential of ALOX15 in distinguishing and predicting ECRSwNP. Methods Forty-eight patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), including 30 ECRSwNP and 18 nonECRSwNP patients, were enrolled. ALOX15 mRNA level was determined in polyps by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The patients’ baseline characteristics were evaluated and analyzed for correlations with ALOX15. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to assess the predictive significance of the potential predictors for ECRSwNP. Results ALOX15 mRNA level was significantly higher in ECRSwNP patients than in nonECRSwNP patients ( P < 0.001). ALOX15 mRNA was significantly correlated with tissue and blood eosinophil percentages ( r = 0.565, P < 0.001 and r = 0.395, P = 0.006), olfaction scores ( r = 0.400, P = 0.005), total visual analogue scale (VAS) symptom scores ( r = 0.383, P = 0.007), ethmoid/maxillary sinus (E/M) ratio ( r = 0.463, P = 0.001), and endoscopy scores ( r = 0.409, P = 0.004). Logistic regression analysis showed ALOX15 mRNA level and percentage of blood eosinophils to be predictive factors for ECRSwNP ( P = 0.004 and P = 0.036, respectively). ROC curve indicated ALOX15 to have high predictive accuracy for ECRSwNP (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.909), which was further improved by combination of ALOX15 with percentage of blood eosinophils (AUC = 0.933). Conclusions The relative ALOX15 mRNA level alone or in combination with blood eosinophils might be a reliable biomarker for predicting a diagnosis of ECRSwNP.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".