A pilot prospective prevalence study of chronic rhinosinusitis associated with inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is characterized by chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract. Extra‐intestinal manifestations such as pulmonary diseases have been reported. Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), an inflammatory condition of the sinonasal mucosa, has been associated with several lung diseases. Given the relationship between lung and intestinal pathologies, and lung and sinus pathologies, we aimed to determine the prevalence of IBD among CRS patients. Methods Pilot prevalence study. Ninety‐two CRS patients were screened for IBD symptoms from October 2018 to January 2020. Patient‐reported disease symptoms and overall quality of life were evaluated using the Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test 22 (SNOT‐22), Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (SIBDQ), and EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level (EQ‐5D‐5L) questionnaires. The Modified Lund–Kennedy (MLK) endoscopic and Lund–Mackay (LM) grading systems were used to confirm CRS diagnoses. Individuals who reported subjective symptoms of IBD were referred to a gastroenterologist clinic for further diagnostics. Results Twenty of the 92 (20.2%, 95% CI: 12.6%–29.8%) CRS patients reported symptoms of IBD and four individuals (4.26%, 95% CI: 1.17%–10.50%) were subsequently diagnosed with IBD. Compared to patients without IBD symptoms (n = 72), those with symptoms (n = 20) reported significantly worse SNOT‐22 (P = 0.002), SIBDQ (P < 0.05), and EQ‐5D‐3L (P = 0.0063) scores. However, these patients did not exhibit significantly different MLK (P = 0.81) or LM (P = 0.04) scores. Conclusion The prevalence of IBD may be elevated among individuals with CRS relative to the general Canadian population. This pilot study suggests that CRS with IBD is associated with lower quality of life. Further cross‐sectional studies with larger sample sizes are required.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".