Common Features in Patients With Superior Canal Dehiscence Declining Surgical Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Superior canal dehiscence (SCD) is a benign condition in which a surgical treatment may be considered depending on the patients' tolerance of their symptoms. In this study, we aim to identify driving factors behind the patients' choice of a surgical management over watchful waiting. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with cochlear and/or vestibular symptoms and a temporal bone high-resolution CT (HRCT) scan showing SCD were included in the study. All patients have been offered either surgical management or watchful waiting. RESULTS: Of these, 28 elected surgery and 34 declined it. The operated group showed more cochlear (6.6 vs. 2.4) symptoms than the non-operated group (P < 0.001) except for hypoacousis, but no significant difference (P = 0.059) was found for the number of vestibular symptoms between both groups (3.4 vs. 1.1). Footstep and eating hyperacousis were both present in 57.1% of operated vs. 3% of non-operated patients (P < 0.001). Oscillopsia with effort and with walking was found in 50% and 35.7% of operated patients, respectively, but none in the non-operated group (P < 0.001). Hearing tuning fork at malleolus and Valsalva and pneumatic speculum induced vertigo showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.003, P < 0.001, P = 0.010 respectively). Cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP) thresholds, air and bone conduction thresholds, and mean air-bone gap (ABG) were similar in the two populations (P > 0.05). The average dehiscence size was 4.7 mm (2.0 - 8.0 mm) and 3.8 mm (1.3 - 7.7 mm) in the operated and non-operated patients, respectively (P = 0.421). CONCLUSIONS: The natures of cochleovestibular signs and symptoms were shown to be key factors in patients' choice of a surgical management whereas paraclinical tests seem to be less significant in the patients' decision for a surgical treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".