MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Algophobia of maxillary sinus puncture. Do we know everything about it?

2023· article· en· W4379528000 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Е. А. Гилифанов, M. Yu. Korkmazov, Tatyana Tilik, И В Иванец, Л. Б. Ардеева, P. I. Sivokha, A. E. Artimovich, Yu. V. Stromova, M. S. Grib

Bibliographic record

VenueRussian otorhinolaryngology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMaxillary sinusSinusitisContext (archaeology)Visual analogue scaleSurgerySinus (botany)AnesthesiaLocal anesthesiaDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Performing a puncture of the maxillary sinus at the stages of diagnosis and treatment of rhinosinusitis remains relevant. The emerging algophobia, according to other patients, or their own previously experienced pain forces patients to abandon this manipulation. In this context, properly performed, with good anesthesia, maxillary sinus puncture is painless and easily tolerated by patients. Objective. To increase the effectiveness of the treatment of maxillary sinusitis by improving the anesthetic support during the puncture of the maxillary sinus based on the study of various types of analgesia near the located anatomical zones. Patients and methods. A total of 152 patients took part in the prospective study, of which: according to absolute indications, 50 patients with acute exacerbation of chronic sinusitis underwent maxillary sinus puncture under application anesthesia, 50 patients with chronic periodontitis underwent extraction of the tooth of the upper jaw under infiltration anesthesia, and 52 patients with chronic diseases of the upper gastrointestinal tract underwent esophagogastrodoudenoscopy (EGD) under topical anesthesia. To objectify and determine the intensity of pain, a visual analogue scale, the McGill questionnaire, Wong–Baker and Brief Pain scales were used. Results. Pain sensations of patients from the puncture of the maxillary sinus averaged 1.27 points, in the first control group, 0.18 points; in the second control group, 1.79 points. The subjective assessment of pain during tooth extraction was significantly lower and significantly different from those during puncture and EGD. Subjective assessments during puncture and EGD did not significantly differ from each other. Values for all groups ranged between «no pain» and «almost no pain.» Conclusion. Subject to the technique and time of anesthesia, puncture of the maxillary sinus is well tolerated by patients of different age groups, and pain, according to the questionnaires, does not go beyond “almost does not hurt.”

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRussian otorhinolaryngologySame topicSinusitis and nasal conditionsFrench-language works237,207