MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997005424 · doi:10.1121/1.4777606

Wideband reflectance in normal and otosclerotic ears

2005· article· en· W1997005424 on OpenAlexaff
Navid Shahnaz, Karin T. Bork

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTympanometryOtosclerosisSusceptanceMiddle earAudiologyEar canalMedicineWidebandAcousticsAudiometryHearing lossRadiologyOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For years immittance has been used in order to help diagnose middle ear pathologies. Specifically, multi-frequency tympanometry (MFT) is able to relate information regarding the mechano-acoustical characteristics of the middle ear system. In the past two decades a new method of middle ear measurement, wideband reflectance (WBR), has been introduced. WBR is the ratio of energy reflected from the surfaces of the ear canal and middle ear on its way to the cochlea in relation to the energy that reaches the surface, or incident energy. This ratio is known as energy reflectance. This paper adds to the limited normative data available, as well as explores whether these normative data have a clinical utility in the diagnosis of otosclerosis. Descriptive statistics were gathered from 62 (115 ears) Caucasian normal hearing adults as well as in seven patients (seven ears) with otosclerosis. All of the otosclerotic patients in this study deviated from the normative values on at least one of the four WBR parameters of power absorption, admittance, susceptance, or conductance even when their MFT results were within normal limits. Although only seven patients were tested, these results provided evidence in favor of the utility of WBR for diagnosis of otosclerosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207