MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7126873267

Quality of life of patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis: effects of filgrastim treatment

2001· article· en· W7126873267 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePure Amsterdam UMC · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)Chronic sinusitisFilgrastimPlaceboRefractory (planetary science)Sinusitis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial, we investigated the influence of filgrastim administration on the quality of life (QOL) of refractory chronic sinusitis patients who did not respond to regular treatments. QOL was considered to be an important outcome measurement because apart from classic sinusitis parameters, it measures the overall burden of the symptomatology of chronic sinusitis patients caused by general malaise, tiredness, and social impediments. The QOL of 56 patients was assessed five times during the 24-week trial with the EuroQol, the Short Form (SF)-36, and the McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ). The QOL scores were all well below population norm scores and scores in a group of patients with chronic sinusitis who had sinus surgery. QOL scores of the filgrastim group suggested a better QOL than the placebo group, although none of the differences were statistically significant. There were indications that it might be possible to determine a subpopulation in which the results are better. Although the QOL measurements were not able to show a significant treatment effect of filgrastim in this group of patients with refractory chronic sinusitis, these measurements are important in studying chronic sinusitis because they enable the comparison of the burden of illness of patients with chronic sinusitis with other patient groups

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePure Amsterdam UMCSame topicSinusitis and nasal conditionsFrench-language works237,207