The Evolution and Application of Artificial Intelligence in Rhinology: A State of the Art Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive overview on the applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in rhinology, highlight its limitations, and propose strategies for its integration into surgical practice. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Ei Compendex, IEEE, and Web of Science. REVIEW METHODS: English studies from inception until January 2022 and those focusing on any application of AI in rhinology were included. Study selection was independently performed by 2 authors; discrepancies were resolved by the senior author. Studies were categorized by rhinology theme, and data collection comprised type of AI utilized, sample size, and outcomes, including accuracy and precision among others. CONCLUSIONS: An overall 5435 articles were identified. Following abstract and title screening, 130 articles underwent full-text review, and 59 articles were selected for analysis. Eleven studies were from the gray literature. Articles were stratified into image processing, segmentation, and diagnostics (n = 27); rhinosinusitis classification (n = 14); treatment and disease outcome prediction (n = 8); optimizing surgical navigation and phase assessment (n = 3); robotic surgery (n = 2); olfactory dysfunction (n = 2); and diagnosis of allergic rhinitis (n = 3). Most AI studies were published from 2016 onward (n = 45). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This state of the art review aimed to highlight the increasing applications of AI in rhinology. Next steps will entail multidisciplinary collaboration to ensure data integrity, ongoing validation of AI algorithms, and integration into clinical practice. Future research should be tailored at the interplay of AI with robotics and surgical education.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".