Search

Objective: The study aimed to investigate otolaryngologists' knowledge, trust, acceptance, and concerns with clinical applications of artificial intelligence (AI). Methods: This study used mixed methods with survey and semistructured interviews. Survey was e‐mailed to American Rhinologic Society members, of which a volunteer sample of 86 members responded. Nineteen otolaryngologists were purposefully recruited and interviewed until thematic saturation was achieved. Results: Seventy‐six respondents (10% response rate) completed the majority of the survey: 49% worked in academic settings and 43% completed residency 10 or fewer years ago. Of 19 interviewees, 58% worked in academic settings, and 47% completed residency 10 or fewer years ago. Familiarity: Only 8% of survey respondents reported having AI training in residency, although 72% had familiarity with general AI concepts; 0 interviewees had personal experience with AI in clinical settings. Expected uses: Of the surveyed otolaryngologists, 82% would use an AI‐based clinical decision aid and 74% were comfortable with AI proposing treatment recommendations. However, only 44% of participants would trust AI to identify malignancy and 53% to interpret radiographic images. Interviewees trusted AI for simple tasks, such as labeling septal deviation, more than complex ones, such as identifying tumors. Factors influencing AI adoption: 89% of survey participants would use AI if it improved patient satisfaction, 78% would be willing to use AI if experts and studies validated the technologies, and 73% would only use AI if it increased efficiency. Sixty‐one percent of survey respondents expected AI incorporation into clinical practice within 5 years. Interviewees emphasized that AI adoption depends on its similarity to their clinical judgment and to expert opinion. Concerns included nuanced or complex cases, poor design or accuracy, and the personal nature of physician‐patient relationships. Conclusion: Few physicians have experience with AI technologies but expect rapid adoption in the clinic, highlighting the urgent need for clinical education and research. Otolaryngologists are most receptive to AI "augmenting" physician expertise and administrative capacity, with respect for physician autonomy and maintaining relationships with patients. Level of Evidence: Level VI, descriptive or qualitative study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: Bacterial composition is uniform in the sinuses of postviral olfactory dysfunction patients.Significant reduction of genus Corynebacterium in PVOD patients compared to controls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Despite extensive research into chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) epidemiology, presentation, and outcomes, there is scant knowledge on sex‐specific differences. The objective of this study was to identify differences between male and female patients with CRS in baseline disease severity at presentation, choice for surgery vs continued medical treatment, and postoperative response. Study Design: We evaluated data on demographic and health characteristics, clinical objective disease measures, and sinus‐specific and general health patient‐reported outcome measures. Setting: Secondary analysis of prospective multicenter outcome study. Methods: Comparison of cohort characteristics and baseline and postoperative measures was performed with a t test, chi‐square test of independence, or Fisher exact test. Within‐subject improvement was compared between sexes with a linear mixed model. Results: Females reported worse quality of life on presentation and postsurgery, despite experiencing less severe disease by standard clinical measures. Overall, females and males showed similar within‐subject improvement after surgery. However, certain quality of life domains and disease measures showed sex‐specific improvement. Females demonstrated greater within‐subject improvement in SF6D‐derived health utility and the SNOT‐22 ear and facial, psychological, and sleep subdomains, although this did not reach statistical significance for the overall cohort. Conclusion: Incorporating data on sex‐specific differences may be important to personalize CRS treatment decision making. The discordance between patient‐reported and clinical measures in CRS has been demonstrated in other pathologies and appears to be exaggerated by sex. Biological and psychological bases for sex‐specific differences in CRS manifestations are an intriguing topic for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Olfactory dysfunction (OD) can occur from a variety of etiologies. However, there are few reports examining whether varying etiologies have unique profiles of psychophysical testing that may provide insight into the pathophysiology of OD. Methods: Adults with chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyps (CRSwNP/CRSsNP) and healthy control adults with no sinus complaints underwent olfactory assessment with Sniffin' Sticks. Profiles of identification and discrimination were compared between CRS and non-CRS subjects across the spectrum of OD. Results: Normosmics with or without CRS identified apple, pineapple, and turpentine less frequently than expected (range 52%-68% correct). Hyposmics with CRS correctly identified orange more frequently than control hyposmics (83%-93% vs 68% for controls) with similar findings for rose. Hyposmics of all cohorts were unable to identify apple (26%). Discrimination profiles were similar across the spectrum of OD and between diagnostic groups. Conclusions: Identification and discrimination rates of specific odorants may provide unique information regarding the etiology of OD, however psychophysical testing is a complex interplay of olfactory and trigeminal function, the strength of target odorant, distractor choices, and familiarity with odorants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]