Improving predictability of IgE-high type 2 chronic sinusitis with nasal polyps in the biologic era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is an inflammatory disease that may require biological therapy. Omalizumab is an anti-IgE biologic that was recently approved by the FDA and Health Canada for use in severe CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) recalcitrant to intranasal corticosteroids. Dosing is based on weight and pre-treatment serum IgE, with elevated levels of the latter being an indication for biologic treatment according to EPOS and EUFOREA guidelines. The goal of this study was to identify variables that predict IgE-high type 2 inflammation and serve as indicators for biologic treatment in CRS. METHODS: Patients ≥ 19 yo diagnosed with CRS undergoing functional endoscopic sinus surgery were included retrospectively. Demographics, past medical history, preoperative blood work, Lund-Mackay (LM), Lund Kennedy (LK), and SNOT-22 scores were extracted. Descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression analyses were conducted. Model superiority was based on Nagelkerke R2 scores and receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients, average age 49.96 ± 13.59 years, were included. Sixty-one binary logistic regression models for elevated serum IgE were created. Among the top 3 models, the best model had sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values of 82.1, 69.2, 80.0, and 72.0. All performance measures except sensitivity exceeded the Canadian Biologics Guideline model. Serum eosinophils ≥ 300 cell/uL, CRSwNP and LM ≥ 17 increased the odds of elevated IgE. CONCLUSIONS: IgE-high type-2 inflammation can be predicted by a model that includes eosinophil ≥ 300 cell/uL, CRSwNP, LM ≥ 17, asthma diagnosis and SNOT-22 ≥ 40. Patients meeting these parameters have a high pretest probability for elevated IgE and would benefit from IgE serology to determine qualification for omalizumab. This could reduce unwarranted IgE serology in patients with CRSwNP but also target a patient population for further workup that will lead to optimization of resource allocation and improve healthcare equity in rural and remote areas within Canada.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".