Blood and local nasal eosinophilia in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: prevalence and correlation with severity of disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of absolute eosinophil blood count and eosinophil count by nasal cytology in the context of real-life clinical practice and to determine if they correlate with the severity of symptoms in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Methods: We enrolled 425 patients with CRSwNP followed between January 2015 and April 2023 at the A. Gemelli Hospital Foundation-IRCCS, Rome, Italy. We gathered data on blood and local eosinophil count and correlated the results with clinical features. All patients underwent endoscopy, Visual Analogical Scale (VAS) for main symptoms, and SinoNasal Outcome Test 22 (SNOT-22). Results: We observed significantly higher mean levels of eosinophils in serum and at nasal cytology in patients with CRSwNP and comorbidities (asthma, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs - exacerbated respiratory disease and allergy) compared to those without. Blood eosinophilia was not associated with severity of symptoms, whereas patients with nasal eosinophil count > 5 eosinophils per high-power field at nasal cytology had a significantly higher median specific VAS for nasal symptoms and significantly higher SNOT 22 scores. Conclusions: We demonstrated that blood eosinophil count and nasal cytology may represent useful tools in routine clinical practice to define Type 2 inflammation and that their levels are usually higher in patients with comorbidities. We also showed that blood eosinophilia was not correlated with severity of symptoms, whereas local eosinophil count was associated with high severity of symptoms and high burden on quality of life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".