Use of Nasal Nitric Oxide to Compare Endoscopic Sinus Surgery Versus Dupilumab: An Exploratory Real-World Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) and dupilumab using nasal nitric oxide (nNO) as a biomarker of mucosal health, Lund-Kennedy endoscopy score (LKES), and Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22). METHODS: A prospective observational cohort of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) patients who underwent ESS followed by standard postoperative therapy was compared with another prospective cohort of CRSwNP patients who received dupilumab. In addition to baseline characteristics, nNO production, LKES, and SNOT-22 levels were compared between the 2 cohorts at the 1st month and 6th month posttreatment. RESULTS: A total of 28 and 37 patients were included in the ESS cohort and the dupilumab group, respectively. At the 1stmonth and 6th month posttreatment, nNO levels were comparable between 2 groups. Compared to baseline, the ESS cohort showed increased nNO levels at 1st month posttreatment, while the dupilumab group did not. At the 6th month posttreatment, both groups exhibited a significant increase in nNO levels. Similar trend was observed in LKES. SNOT-22 decreased at the 1st month and 6th month posttreatment compared with that in baseline. CONCLUSION: ESS and dupilumab confer comparable benefits in terms of nNO changes, symptoms, and endoscopy findings at the 6th month posttreatment. ESS may result in more rapid improvement in the outcomes than in dupilumab as evidenced by the 1 month posttreatment values.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".