Faculty Opinions recommendation of Contemporary classification of chronic rhinosinusitis beyond polyps vs no polyps: A review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a broadly defined process that has previously been used to describe many different sinonasal pathologic conditions from odontogenic sinusitis and allergic fungal sinusitis to the more contemporary definition of broad inflammatory airway conditions. Previous classification systems have dichotomized these conditions into CRS with nasal polyps and CRS without nasal polyps. However, clinicians are learning more about the inflammatory subtypes of CRS, which can lead to improved delivery and effectiveness of treatment.Observations: In clinical practice, treatment decisions are often based on observable findings, clinical history, presumed disease, and molecular pathophysiologic characteristics. A proposed classification system is simple and practical. It proposes that the functional anatomical compartments involved create the first level of separation into local and diffuse CRS, which are usually unilateral or bilateral in distribution. Diffuse does not imply "pansinusitis" but simply that the disease is not confined to a known functional anatomical unit. This classification takes into account whether local anatomical factors are associated with pathogenesis. Then the inflammatory endotype dominance is separated into a type 2 skewed inflammation, as this has both causal and treatment implications. The non-type 2 CRS encompasses everything else that is not yet known about inflammation and may change over time. The phenotypes or clinical examples are CRS entities that have been described and how they align with this system.Conclusions and Relevance: Although research continues to further define the subtypes of CRS into phenotypes and endotypes, the proposed classification system of primary CRS by anatomical distribution and endotype dominance allows for a pathway forward. PMID: 32644117
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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.137 | 0.085 |
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".