Can Electrocochleography in Meniere's Disease be Noninvasive?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the results of extratympanic and transtympanic electrocochleography (ECochg) in clinically diagnosed cases of Meniere's disease and controls. DESIGN: Prospective study on 20 clinically diagnosed cases of Meniere's disease and 20 age- and sex-matched controls. SETTING: Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. METHODS: Electrocochleography was performed by a transtympanic method using a stainless steel needle electrode kept on the promontory and by an extratympanic method whereby the needle electrode was inserted into bony canal skin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The various parameters compared were summation potential latency and amplitude, action potential latency and amplitude, and ratio of summation to action potential amplitude (SP/AP). RESULTS: A significant difference in summation to action potential amplitude ratio (SP/AP) between cases and controls was obtained by both methods. Using 0.29 as a cutoff for SP/AP, the transtympanic method yielded a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 90%, whereas the extratympanic method showed corresponding values of 90% and 80%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Contrary to previous studies, extratympanic ECochg is shown to be an efficacious and a less invasive test as compared with the transtympanic method and can be easily performed in clinical practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".