Trigeminal cold receptors and airflow perception are altered in chronic rhinosinusitis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), nasal obstruction can often be explained by anatomical deformities, polyps, or congested nasal mucosa. However, in cases with little deformity or inflammation, perceived nasal obstruction may result from reduced airflow perception caused by an alteration of the intranasal trigeminal system. The aim of this study was to assess this association. METHODOLOGY: We performed a prospective case-control study of 15 CRS patients, 18 patients with a deviated nasal septum (DNS) and 16 healthy controls. We assessed olfactory function using the Sniffin' Sticks test and Visual Analog Scales (VAS). We used the Trigeminal Lateralization Task (TLT) with eucalyptol and cinnamaldehyde to examine intranasal trigeminal function. Further, we assessed nasal patency with Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow and VAS. Finally, we measured protein levels of trigeminal receptors (TRPM8, TRPA1 and TRPV1) and inflammatory markers (IL-13, INF-y and eosinophils) in CRS and DNS patients' mucosal biopsies using Western Blots. RESULTS: CRS patients had significantly lower olfactory function than DNS and healthy controls. They also had significantly lower TLT scores for eucalyptol than both other groups. CRS patients had significantly lower nasal patency than controls; for DNS patients this was limited to subjective measures of nasal patency. In line with this, CRS patients exhibited significantly higher levels of sTRPM8-18 than DNS patients. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal trigeminal function is decreased in CRS patients, possibly due to the overexpression of short isoforms of TRPM8 receptors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".