Pediatric Inferior Turbinate Hypertrophy: Diagnosis and Management. A <scp>YO‐IFOS</scp> Consensus Statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pediatric inferior turbinate hypertrophy (PedTH) is a frequent and often overlooked cause or associated cause of nasal breathing difficulties. This clinical consensus statement (CCS) aims to provide a diagnosis and management framework covering the lack of specific guidelines for this condition and addressing the existing controversies. METHODS: A clinical consensus statement (CCS) was developed by a panel of 20 contributors from 7 different European and North American countries using the modified Delphi method. The aim of the CCS was to offer a multidisciplinary reference framework for the management of PedTH on the basis of shared clinical experience and analysis of the strongest evidence currently available. RESULTS: A systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria was performed. From the initial 96 items identified, 7 articles were selected based on higher-evidence items such as randomized-controlled trials, guidelines, and systematic reviews. A 34-statement survey was developed, and after three rounds of voting, 2 items reached strong consensus, 17 reached consensus or near consensus, and 15 had no consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Until further prospective data are available, our CCS should provide a useful reference for PedTH management. PedTH should be considered a nasal obstructive disease not necessarily related to an adult condition but frequently associated with other nasal or craniofacial disorders. Diagnosis requires clinical examination and endoscopy, whereas rhinomanometry, nasal cytology, and questionnaires have little clinical role. Treatment choice should consider the specific indications and features of the available options, with a preference for less invasive procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 Laryngoscope, 134:1437-1444, 2024.
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 | 0.033 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".