Respiratory epithelial hamartoma – a case series and the importance of its diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Respiratory epithelial adenomatoid hamartomas (REAH) are benign growths that can occur in the nasal cavity. When mistaken for inflammatory nasal polyps, it can result in presumed poor treatment response. This case series and review outlines their clinical presentation and importance of its recognition.Methods Cases were retrospectively analysed from a single centre over a 12-month period. Imaging and histology results were analysed.Results Four cases were reviewed. All males in their 6th decade undergoing treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. All reported hyposmia, poor response to steroids and had a widened olfactory cleft on CT imaging. There was no recurrence following surgical resection.Conclusion Our findings are consistent with other case series. It is essential that clinicians are aware of REAH and consider it in patients who fit this clinical picture to manage expectations of treatments, in particular steroids and biologics. If undergoing sinus surgery, olfactory cleft histological sampling should be considered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".