Intranasal trigeminal sensitivity may be impaired after functional nasal surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional nasal surgery is frequently performed for sinonasal diseases not responding to medical treatment. Although surgery mostly turns out to be successful in such cases, a potential side effect of manipulating the nasal mucous membrane is impairment of intranasal trigeminal function. Not well known by specialists and clinically scarcely explored, this function provides sensory information from the nasal mucosa. It is responsible for the afferent part of protective nasal reflexes such as sneezing and coughing, but also provides the feeling of nasal airflow (1). Recent work suggests that patients with low intranasal trigeminal function are more prone to suffer from nasal obstruction and may be less satisfied with functional surgery (2-6). It has been suggested that intranasal trigeminal function decreases with mucosal changes, such as chronic inflammation and improves again once the inflammation has been treated (3). However, the influence of functional nasal surgery (i.e. surgery aimed at the improvement of nasal function) with consecutive mucosal micro-injuries on intranasal trigeminal function is not yet fully clear (2-4).
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".