How Do Cartilage and other Material Overlay over a Prosthesis Affect its Vibration Transmission Properties in Ossiculoplasty?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The prosthesis/eardrum interface is often deliberately modified by cartilage overlay, or by soft tissue in-growth. We examined the effects of vibration transmission to the footplate of inserting cartilage of varying sizes, and materials of varying rigidities. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using fresh human cadaveric temporal bones, stapes vibrations were measured. A partial ossicular reconstruction prosthesis was covered with differing materials and cartilage sizes. Materials used included glass (rigid), cartilage (intermediate), and Merocel (soft). Cartilage sizes varied in size relative to the prosthesis head. RESULTS: Rigidity of material had little impact. Cartilage size had an impact, with smaller cartilage covers performing best. CONCLUSION: Larger cartilage sizes performed worse. This could be a result of increased tension on the eardrum from larger cartilage size. There is little impact stiffness of interposed material stiffness. SIGNIFICANCE: Cartilage of the size used clinically has little impact on vibration transmission to the footplate. A wide range of materials could clinically be interposed over the prosthesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".