CD4 <sup>+</sup> and CD8 <sup>+</sup> T cells infiltration of the polyp tissue in a series of Greek patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) presents with two basic phenotypes, CRS with (CRSwNP) or without nasal polyps (CRSsNP). The present study’s objective was to evaluate the clinical characteristics in a Greek population of CRSwNP patients and their relation to the frequency of CD4 + and CD8 + T cells as well as the CD4 + /CD8 + ratio as prognostic biomarkers. Thirty-three adult CRSwNP patients were recruited at the ENT Department of “G. Papanikolaou” General Hospital of Thessaloniki. Tissue samples from nasal polyps were collected during functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Hadley’s nasal endoscopy scores, preoperative Lund-Mackay CT scores, and 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test, were recorded for each patient. The presence of CD4 + and CD8 + lymphocytes was evaluated in tissue sections by immunohistochemistry. Blood eosinophil and neutrophil counts were also included in the analysis. All data were analyzed with SPSS (version 21.0). Twenty-one males and 12 females were included in the analysis with mean age of 49.5 ± 14.5. LMS ( P < 0.001, r = 0.961) and HES ( P = 0.001, r = 0.54) were both positively correlated with SNOT 22. Hadley’s endoscopic score was also positively correlated with Lund-Mackay CT score ( P < 0.001, r = 0.674). Absolute count and percentage of eosinophils were positively correlated with LMS ( P = 0.003, r = 0.513, P = 0.002, r = 0.527 respectively) and HES ( P < 0.001, r = 0.622, P = 0.004, r = 0.497 respectively). Ιn a subgroup analysis, CRSwNP patients with blood eosinophils >5%, LMS and SNOT 22 were negatively correlated to CD4 + cells ( P = 0.029 r = −0.654, P = 0.043, r = −0.618, respectively). In CRSwNP patients with CD4 + /CD8 + ratio <0.3, CD8 + T cells were positively correlated with the absolute count and percentage of eosinophils ( P = 0.042, r = 0.684, P = 0.036, r = 0.699 respectively). In this study, we recognized the potential importance of nasal CD8 + T cells in the pathophysiology of CRSwNP patients, also characterized by eosinophil accumulation. Furthermore, the patients’ clinical characteristics were also positively correlated with the eosinophilic inflammation and the severity of the disease.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".