Evaluating the Quality and Safety of In-Office Rhinologic Procedures: A YO-IFOS Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this pilot study was to identify which aspects of in-office rhinologic procedures (IORPs) warrant further attention and investigation in the future. The secondary objectives were to survey which IORPs are most common and to identify needs for education and training. A cross-sectional study was carried out following the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS). The survey collected demographic, organizational, quality, and safety aspects of IORPs and was electronically distributed to YO-IFOS members across five continents. A total of 194 surgeons completed the survey, and 172 respondents (88%) performed IORPs. Ninety-nine responders (51.5%) worked in an academic setting. Common procedures included powered polypectomy (48, 28.4%) and turbinate reduction (93, 54.1%). The main concerns were about patients’ tolerance (116, 76.3%) and about the safety of the procedure (102, 67.1%). The most important barriers to the diffusion of IORPs are concerns about the tolerance and safety of these procedures. It would be convenient to establish protocols for this type of procedure to ensure the greatest patient comfort based on evidence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".