MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intratympanic Corticosteroids for Sudden Idiopathic Sensorineural Hearing Loss

2005· article· en· W2006625937 on OpenAlexaff
Avik Banerjee, Lorne S. Parnes

Bibliographic record

VenueOtology & Neurotology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAudiogramMethylprednisoloneDexamethasoneHearing lossAudiologyAudiometrySensorineural hearing lossOtologyRetrospective cohort studyAdverse effectCorticosteroidAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether instillation of intratympanic steroids is effective in the treatment of sudden idiopathic sensorineural hearing loss. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent intratympanic steroid treatment (methylprednisolone and/or dexamethasone) between 1996 and 2002 at a tertiary care university otology clinic. Thirty-three patients were identified, of which 26 met inclusion criteria for having an idiopathic hearing loss. Pretreatment and posttreatment pure-tone audiograms and speech discrimination scores were compared. RESULTS: Overall, there was a 27.2 +/- 5.7 dB improvement in the pure-tone thresholds and a 25.4 +/- 6.2% improvement in speech discrimination scores. Those treated within 10 days of onset had a statistically significant better outcome than those treated after 10 days. No adverse reactions or complications were reported. CONCLUSION: Instillation of intratympanic steroids represents a safe and potentially effective treatment of sudden idiopathic sensorineural hearing loss.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations131
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtology & NeurotologySame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207