MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The symmetry of paediatric tympanograms

2006· article· en· W1995375051 on OpenAlexaff
A. Cruise, Christos Georgalas, Michael J. Wareing

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Otolaryngology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsSt Mary's Hospital Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTympanometryMedicineEustachian tubeMiddle earMyringoplastyAudiologySurgeryHearing lossAudiometryTympanoplasty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives. The poorer outcome of myringoplasty in children in comparison with adults is commonly attributed to poor Eustachian tube function. The only routine test giving an indication of Eustachian tube function is tympanometry. It is common practice to look at the contralateral tympanogram as a predictor of the child's Eustachian tube function when deciding whether to proceed with myringoplasty. This relies on the assumption that Eustachian tube function is symmetrical. This study seeks to assess whether this assumption is correct. Method. We collected copies of 297 pairs of tympanograms carried out in a paediatric ENT clinic over a ten‐month period. We compared the symmetry of tympanograms of children aged from 5 to 16 years. Results. We looked at the association between normal Eustachian tube functions (type A) or abnormal Eustachian tube function (type B, C1 or C2) in one ear and Eustachian tube function in the other ear. A type‐A tympanogram in one ear predicted a type‐A tympanogram in the other ear with a sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CI 0.74–0.86) and specificity of 0.75 (0.66–0.82). The positive predictive value of a type‐A tympanogram was 0.82 (0.75–0.87) and the negative predictive value was 0.73 (0.65–0.81). Conclusions. There is a good correlation of Eustachian tube function, as demonstrated by tympanometry, between the ears of a child. If Eustachian tube function does have an impact on myringoplasty outcome then the contralateral tympanogram should provide some help in the decision on timing of myringoplasty.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical OtolaryngologySame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207