Rhinology Research: Wide Ranging and Robust.

BackgroundA considerable volume of possible applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of rhinology exists, and research in the area is rapidly evolving.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to provide a brief overview of all current literature on AI in the field of rhinology. Further, it aims to highlight gaps in the literature for future rhinology researchers.MethodsOVID MEDLINE (1946-2022) and EMBASE (1974-2022) were searched from January 1, 2017 until May 14, 2022 to identify all relevant articles. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist was used to guide the review.ResultsA total of 2420 results were identified of which 62 met the eligibility criteria. A further 17 articles were included through bibliography searching, for a total of 79 articles on AI in rhinology. Each year resulted in an increase in the number of publications, from 3 articles published in 2017 to 31 articles published in 2021. Articles were produced by authors from 22 countries with a relative majority coming from the USA (19%), China (19%), and South Korea (13%). Articles were placed into 1 of 5 categories: phenotyping/endotyping (n = 12), radiological diagnostics (n = 42), prognostication (n = 10), non-radiological diagnostics (n = 7), surgical assessment/planning (n = 8). Diagnostic or prognostic utility of the AI algorithms were rated as excellent (n = 29), very good (n = 25), good (n = 7), sufficient (n = 1), bad (n = 2), or was not reported/not applicable (n = 15).ConclusionsAI is experiencing an increasingly significant role in rhinology research. Articles are showing high rates of diagnostic accuracy and are being published at an almost exponential rate around the world. Utilizing AI in radiological diagnosis was the most published topic of research, however, AI in rhinology is still in its infancy and there are several topics yet to be thoroughly explored.

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)-based calculation of intranasal airflow became an important method in rhinologic research. Current evidence shows weak to moderate correlation as well as a systematic underprediction of nasal resistance by numerical simulations. In this study, we investigate whether these differences can be explained by measurement uncertainties caused by rhinomanometric devices and procedures. Furthermore, preliminary findings regarding the impact of tissue movements are reported. A retrospective sample of 17 patients, who reported impaired nasal breathing and for which rhinomanometric (RMM) measurements using two different devices as well as computed tomography scans were available, was investigated in this study. Three patients also exhibited a marked collapse of the nasal valve. Agreement between both rhinomanometric measurements as well as between rhinomanometry and CFD-based calculations was assessed using linear correlation and Bland-Altman analyses. These analyses were performed for the volume flow rates measured at trans-nasal pressure differences of 75 and 150Pa during inspiration and expiration. The correlation between volume flow rates measured using both RMM devices was good (R2 > 0.72 for all breathing states), and no relevant differences in measured flow rates was observed (21.6ml/s and 14.8ml/s for 75 and 150Pa, respectively). In contrast, correlation between RMM and CFD was poor (R2 < 0.5) and CFD systematically overpredicted RMM-based flow rate measurements (231.8ml/s and 328.3ml/s). No differences between patients with and without nasal valve collapse nor between inspiration and expiration were observed. Biases introduced during RMM measurements, by either the chosen device, the operator or other aspects as for example the nasal cycle, are not strong enough to explain the gross differences commonly reported between RMM- and CFD-based measurement of nasal resistance. Additionally, tissue movement during breathing is most likely also no sufficient explanation for these differences.

Analysis of general surgery literature has revealed noteworthy sex bias and underreporting. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of sex bias and underreporting in rhinology. All articles in 2016 issues of Rhinology, the American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy (AJRA), and the International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology (IFAR) were reviewed. Of 369 articles, 248 met inclusion criteria. Excluded studies were cadaveric, meta-analysis/review, and editorial. Data collected included study type, demographics, and sex-based statistical analysis. There were 202 clinical and 46 basic science/translational studies. From 188 of 202 clinical studies with known sex, 1 included participants of a single sex. Sex matching >50% (SM50 ) was found in 81.9%, and 55.9% performed sex-based statistical analysis. Domestic clinical studies performed sex-based analysis more frequently than international (54.9% vs 44.4%) and exhibited a higher rate of SM50 (84.5% vs 80.3%), though these differences were not statistically significant. For basic/translational studies, 54.5% (24/44) provided sex breakdown. Among these, 29.2% included 1 sex, and 8.3% performed sex-based analysis. Of 10 using animals, 70.0% utilized 1 sex. The remaining 30.0% did not report sex. None of 4 cell line studies reported cell sex. Less than half (46.2%) of domestic and 56.3% of international studies reported sex breakdown; 7.7% of domestic and 3.0% of international studies performed sex-based analysis. Although sex may impact outcomes, research without sex reporting and analysis is prevalent, particularly among basic science/translational studies. Future research must account for sex in demographics and analysis to best inform evidence-based clinical guidelines.

There was great interest in the 19th and early 20th century in classifying human races as Caucasian, Asian African etc. according to nasal shape and size, and the nasal index was the most commonly used measurement to differentiate races. To determine if there is any clinical relevance of the shape and size of the nose in relation to physiology, pathology and surgery. Systematic review. A structured search of PubMed was performed from 1966 to 2008 for each section of the review focusing on the ethnic variations in nasal index, the effect of climate of nasal shape, ethic variations of nasal physiology and racial predilection for sinonasal pathology. Nasal proportions do vary between ethnic groups but the size and shape of the nose does not define Caucasian, Asian and African races respectively. Anthropologists agree that the nasal variations are due to man's adaptation to the environment. However, this theory remains to be proven. Published data on nasal physiology have not shown significant differences between the ethnic groups despite obvious differences in nasal proportions. There is no evidence of ethnic specific predilection to disease due to anatomical variation, physiological vulnerability or genetic susceptibility. Rhinology research is often confounded by classifying populations according to race, as racial characteristics are not based on any scientific principles and the nasal index may be a more reliable discriminator. The only area in which the size and shape of the nose is of relevance is in aesthetic and reconstruction surgery. Nasal proportions are important aesthetically but appear to have little relevance to the rhinologist.

The October 2020 issue of Rhinology is a very interesting edition as it illustrates how world-wide colleagues pave the way for a better future of patients affected by nose and sinus diseases. After the successful launch of EPOS2020 in Spring 2020, the editorial team of Rhinology is proud to present to you the latest and most exciting data in Rhinology research. Getting insight into the complexity and relevance of proteomics in CRS, epithelial-mesenchymal contribution to CRS, zinc levels in nasal and systemic compartment of CRS, nasal biomarkers of CRSwNP that predict recurrence of disease after sinus surgery, and the odor identification test for children, called "U-Sniff", and FID scores (Frequency, Intensity and Duration) scores for epistaxis are all in the 2020 October issue and highly relevant for Rhinology practice. These studies build further on the solid grounds of previous Rhinology research meeting the unmets needs in the field.

Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale into the Arabic language with studying of its psychometric properties. Prospective instrument-validation study. Guidelines for the cross-cultural adaptation process from the original English language scale into the Arabic language version were followed. We assessed the psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the NOSE scale (A-NOSE) (feasibility, reproducibility, internal consistency, reliability, discriminatory validity, responsiveness to change) in 101 consecutive patients who underwent septal surgery (preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively) and 102 asymptomatic controls. The Mann-Whitney test showed a statistically significant difference for the mean score between the patients and the control group denoting good clinical validity. The Cronbach's α coefficient value for the A-NOSE scale for 101 cases was 0.995, demonstrating good internal consistency. The Wilcoxon signed rank test showed a marked improvement in the patients score 3 months postoperatively. Correlation and level of agreement of the mean score of the A-NOSE scale for each question were studied using Spearman's rank correlation for each question, and Pearson's correlation for the total score showed statistically significant results. The A-NOSE scale is a valid instrument for evaluating the subjective severity of nasal obstruction and is recommended to be used in rhinology research and daily practice. 3b. Laryngoscope, 127:2455-2459, 2017.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic impact on rhinology research: A survey of the American Rhinologic Society.

International Forum of Allergy & RhinologyVolume 8, Issue 5 p. 561-562 EDITORIAL A “golden age” in skull base and rhinology research Benjamin S. Bleier MD, FACS, Benjamin S. Bleier MD, FACS Guest EditorSearch for more papers by this author Benjamin S. Bleier MD, FACS, Benjamin S. Bleier MD, FACS Guest EditorSearch for more papers by this author First published: 25 April 2018 https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.22130Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume8, Issue5May 2018Pages 561-562 RelatedInformation

Updated Information on Rhinology Research in Crete, Greece.

The October 2020 issue of Rhinology is a very interesting edition as it illustrates how world-wide colleagues pave the way for a better future of patients affected by nose and sinus diseases. After the successful launch of EPOS2020 in Spring 2020, the editorial team of Rhinology is proud to present to you the latest and most exciting data in Rhinology research. Getting insight into the complexity and relevance of proteomics in CRS, epithelial-mesenchymal contribution to CRS, zinc levels in nasal and systemic compartment of CRS, nasal biomarkers of CRSwNP that predict recurrence of disease after sinus surgery, and the odor identification test for children, called "U-Sniff", and FID scores (Frequency, Intensity and Duration) scores for epistaxis are all in the 2020 October issue and highly relevant for Rhinology practice. These studies build further on the solid grounds of previous Rhinology research meeting the unmets needs in the field.

Duplicated images in research articles erode integrity and credibility of biomedical science. Forensic software is necessary to detect figures with inappropriately duplicated images. This analysis reveals a significant issue of inappropriate image duplication in our field.

Although over 30 years have passed since the introduction of endoscopic sinus surgery, the field of rhinology continues to grow at a rapid pace. As a rapidly evolving subspecialty of otolaryngology, the field of rhinology offers broad avenues for research exploration, as evidenced by the wide range of subjects addressed in this special rhinology-focused issue of the World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery. The high prevalence of sinonasal disorders is highlighted by a population-based study of olfaction by Noel et al that demonstrates variations in the prevalence of olfactory dysfunction according to socioeconomic status, race and age. Although our understanding of the mechanisms of olfactory loss may be limited, the recognition of how broadly our population is affected by olfactory disorders should heighten the urgency for new initiatives in basic, clinical and translational research in olfaction. Diagnostic conundrums in rhinology continue to challenge clinicians. The lack of correlation between subjective and objective measures in rhinosinusitis is one such paradox, reaffirmed by a prospective study by Rathor and Bhattacharjee. In their prospective study, they demonstrated poor correlations between CT scores, endoscopy scores, and patient-reported outcome measures. Rathor's study raises important questions regarding the relative merits of subjective versus objective parameters in the clinical evaluation of patients with possible rhinosinusitis. Paknezhad et al present a diagnostic dilemma of a different sort; they describe an unusual pair of cases in which patients presented with a partially invasive form of fungal sinusitis that spared intravascular spaces. Cases such as these challenge us to reconsider the normative criteria for established rhinologic diagnoses and to consider how well-characterized rhinologic diseases may present in novel ways. Innovations in treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis are also at the leading edge of rhinologic research. Cho et al describe a novel biomaterial that may serve as a vehicle for delivery of amphotericin B to the sinuses. The favorable pharmacokinetics of this drug delivery system bode well for its potential for treatment of fungal sinusitis while minimizing toxic drug effects. The prospect of applying this novel technology to the topical delivery of other classes of antimicrobials suggests intriguing possibilities. Although I unfortunately do not have adequate space to discuss all of the superb contributions to this rhinology-focused issue of the Journal, I am delighted to highlight the fact that this issue's international contributors hail from China, India, Israel, Korea, Singapore, and the United States. The World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery aims to offer a global perspective on the latest clinical and research advances in otolaryngology, an aim that is excitingly realized with this issue.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs-exacerbated respiratory disease （N-ERD） is a chronic respiratory disease characterized by eosinophilic inflammation, featuring chronic rhinosinusitis （CRS）, asthma, and intolerance to cyclooxygenase 1 （COX-1） inhibitors. The use of these medications can lead to an acute worsening of rhinitis and asthma symptoms. This condition has not yet received sufficient attention in China, with a high rate of misdiagnosis and a lack of related research. The Chinese Rhinology Research Group convened a group of leading young experts in otolaryngology from across the country, based on the latest domestic and international evidence-based medical practices to formulate this consensus.The consensus covers the epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, diagnostic methods, and treatment strategies for N-ERD, including pharmacotherapy, surgery, biologic treatments, and desensitization therapy. The goal is to improve recognition of N-ERD, reduce misdiagnosis, and enhance treatment outcomes.

EUFOREA Rhinology Research Forum 2017: report of the brainstorming sessions on endotype-driven treatment, patient empowerment and digital future in airways care

Let us start this first editorial of 2018 with wishing you all a marvelous year where most of your dreams come true. In the last years, the editors of Rhinology felt often very unhappy when again we had to refuse papers send to us for Rhinology. Unfortunately, every year we can only accept around 15% of the papers we receive. With pain in our hearts, we often have to refuse papers of good quality but just not innovative enough or with slight methodological imperfections. The editorial board of Rhinology recognized this feeling and we decided to start a new journal: Rhinology Online to have space for all those papers that are good but just do not make the cut for Rhinology. Rhinology Online is a journal of the European Rhinologic Society, and will provide a platform for the dissemination of rhinologic research and reviews, as well as position papers, task force reports and guidelines, amongst an international scientific audience.