MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410873090 · doi:10.3389/falgy.2025.1594655

Fluticasone propionate in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP): an artificial intelligence-driven consensus

2025· article· en· W4410873090 on OpenAlexaff
Emilio Avallone, Raffaella Iannella, Antonella Miriam Di Lullo, Michele Grasso, Salvatore Musto, Giuseppe Tortoriello, Bernardino Cassiano, Simona Nappi, Giovanna Lucia Piazzetta, Giovanni Tomacelli, Aurelio D’Ecclesia, Giacomo Spinato, Doriano Politi, Carlo De Luca, Claudio Donadio Caporale, Livio Presutti, Gabriele Molteni, Ernesto Pasquini, Francesco Panu, Simonetta Masieri, Stefano Di Girolamo, Giulio Cesare Passàli, Luca de Campora, Giandomenico Maggiore, Domenico Di Maria

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Allergy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronic rhinosinusitisNasal polypsFluticasone propionateFluticasoneMedicineGastroenterologyInternal medicineAsthma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Fluticasone propionate (FP) is a topical corticosteroid used to treat rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). However, the need for a consensus on its use stems from the increasing focus on optimizing topical therapies to improve clinical outcomes and minimize systemic side effects. Materials and methods: The Butterfly Decisions AI platform facilitated the collection and integration of evaluations and feedback, facilitating an expert consensus on 13 statements. Results: The participants agreed highly on the different statements. The experts agreed that FP effectively reduces the need for surgery and controls the symptoms of CRSwNP. The use of advanced delivery systems significantly improved drug delivery and therapeutic outcomes. Treatment with FP was associated with a reduction in the recurrence of nasal polyps and an improvement in the patient's quality of life. Conclusions: FP, as other equal corticosteroids, represents a first-line local therapy for patients with CRSwNP without complicating comorbidities due to its high efficacy and low systemic bioavailability. The Butterfly Decisions platform has demonstrated the effectiveness of integrating AI tools into clinical decision-making, improving the transparency and objectivity of assessments.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in AllergySame topicSinusitis and nasal conditionsFrench-language works237,207