ArticleOTO open
Clinical Utility of Machine Learning Methods Using Regression Models for Diagnosing Eosinophilic Chronic Rhinosinusitis.
Article in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in otorhinolaryngology: current trends and application areas.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Review
- Correlation among post-surgery recurrence of CRSwNP and TCM syndromes and tissue inflammatory cell infiltration type: a study protocol.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Machine learning methods using regression models can predict actual values of histological eosinophil count from blood eosinophil levels. Therefore, these methods might be useful for diagnosing eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis, but their utility still remains unclear. We compared 2 statistical approaches, and investigated the utility of machine learning methods for diagnosing eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis. Study Design: Retrospective study. Setting: Medical center. Methods: Data, including eosinophilic levels, obtained from blood and sinonasal samples of 264 patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (257 with and 57 without nasal polyps) were analyzed. We determined factors affecting histopathological eosinophil count in regression models. We also investigated optimal cutoff values for blood eosinophil percentages/absolute eosinophil counts (AECs) through receiver operating characteristic curves and machine-learning methods based on regression models. A histopathological eosinophil count ≥10/high-power field was defined as eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis. Results: Blood eosinophil levels, nasal polyp presence, and comorbid asthma were factors affecting histopathological eosinophil count. Cutoffs between the 2 statistical approaches differed in the group with nasal polyps, but not in one without nasal polyps. Machine-learning methods identified blood eosinophil percentages ≥1% or AEC ≥100/μL as cut-offs for eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, while ≥6% or ≥400/μL for one without nasal polyps. Conclusion: Cut-offs of blood eosinophil levels obtained by machine-learning methods might be useful when suspecting eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis prior to biopsy because of their ability to adjust covariates, dealing with overfitting, and predicting actual values of histological eosinophil count.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.