MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391690152 · doi:10.1111/pde.15560

Frequency of the prominent transverse nasal root vein in children

2024· article· en· W4391690152 on OpenAlexaff
Igor López‐Carrera, Joseph M. Lam, Antonio Torrelo

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Dermatology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhototypeMedicineDermatologyNoseSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The presence of a vascular, blue linear discoloration on the nasal root of infants and young children is a frequent incidental feature, rarely reported in the medical literature. It is related to the trajectory of the transverse nasal root vein (TNRV). OBJECTIVE: To study the frequency and clinical characteristics of the vascular discoloration of the nasal root in children. METHODS: A prospective study was performed to address the presence or absence of vascular discoloration of the nasal root in all children under 6 years of age attending a pediatric dermatology clinic from November 2022 to November 2023. Data on age and skin phototype (Fitzpatrick classification I-VI) were also collected. RESULTS: Of 701 patients examined, 345 (49.2%) presented with a vascular discoloration of the nasal root. This was present in 97 of 193 (50.3%), 127 of 261 (48.7%), and 121 of 247 (49.0%) patients for the age groups 0-1, 1-3, and 3-6 years, respectively. The presence of vascular discoloration of the nasal root was more frequent in patients with lighter Fitzpatrick skin phototypes: 49 of 69 (71.0%) phototype II, 157 of 290 (54.1%) phototype III, and 137 of 337 (40.7%) phototype IV. CONCLUSIONS: A vascular discoloration of the nasal root is a frequent skin feature in infants and children, persisting at least until the age of 6. It does not constitute any medical problem aside from cosmetic concern and parents can be reassured of its benign nature. We propose the medical term "prominent TNRV" to describe this condition.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric DermatologySame topicCongenital Ear and Nasal AnomaliesFrench-language works237,207