Audiologic Presentation of Cerebellopontine Angle Cholesteatoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the audiologic presentation of patients with cerebellopontine angle (CPA) cholesteatoma. DESIGN: Retrospective case review. SETTING: Neuro-otologic tertiary referral centre. METHODS: The study population consisted of 11 patients with CPA cholesteatomas. The patients underwent a standard audiologic investigation in the preoperative setting, which consisted of pure-tone audiometry, speech audiometry, and auditory brainstem response (ABR). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The audiologic parameters that were analyzed were the pure-tone threshold, pure-tone average (PTA), and speech discrimination scores (SDSs). The morphology and latency of the ABR were evaluated. In addition, the clinical and radiologic presentations of the lesions were reviewed. RESULTS: The mean PTA in the diseased ear was 22.6 dB HL (SD 18.2), whereas in the contralateral ear, it was 19.1 dB HL (SD 19.6). In 4 patients, the hearing loss was asymmetric, with the diseased ear being the worse ear. The mean SDS was 82.28% in the affected ear and 95.28% in the contralateral ear. ABR was abnormal in 9 of 10 cases (90%), with only the affected ear being abnormal in 4 cases. In the other 5 cases, the ABR was bilaterally abnormal. CONCLUSIONS: CPA cholesteatomas are very slow-growing lesions that involve the eighth cranial nerve. The paucity and insidious onset of symptoms mean that the diagnosis is often late, permitting the lesions to reach impressive dimensions at the time of diagnosis. Although magnetic resonance imaging represents the gold standard in the diagnosis of these lesions, ABR proved to be of value in the assessment of the auditory pathway, especially in those patients referred with a vague symptomatology and with normal hearing.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".