Quality of life of patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis: effects of filgrastim treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".