The effect of two sphenoidotomy approaches on the sense of smell: trans-ethmoidal versus trans-sphenoethmoidal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There are generally two methods to access the sphenoid sinus: either through the natural ostium {trans-sphenoethmoidalor via sphenoethmoidal recess), or by creating a second opening through the posterior ethmoids (trans-ethmoidal).This study psychophysically and subjectively evaluates the effect of the trans-sphenoethmoidal technique to the trans-ethmoidal technique for sphenoid sinusotomy on olfactory function. Methods: Prospective cohort analysis of 48 patients with comparable sinus disease underwent primary sphenoidotomy via transsphenoethmoidal(n = 24) versus trans-ethmiodal (n = 24) technique between September 2011 and February 2012. The patients had their olfaction measured psychophysically with "Sniffin' Sticks" and subjectively with a visual analogue scale (VAS) pre-operatively and at 5 weeks post-operatively. Results: Psychophysical scores from the Sniffin' sticks provide a Threshold, Discrimination and Identification (TDI) score out of 48.The TDI change (post-operative TDI score minus pre-operative score) as well as VAS change (post-operative VAS minus pre-operativeVAS) were analyzed using t-test analysis, which showed no significant difference between the two measurements. Conclusion: If the trans-sphenoethmoidal technique is done meticulously, patients have the same olfactory relief, psychophysically and subjectively, as those undergoing the trans-ethmoidal technique.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".