MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019739140 · doi:10.1067/mhn.2000.107459

Temporal Bone Necrosis: Diagnosis, Classification, and Management

2000· article· en· W2019739140 on OpenAlexaff
Irvin Pathak, Graham E. Bryce

Bibliographic record

VenueOtolaryngology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOral health in cancer treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNecrosisMedicineTemporal boneDiseasePulp necrosisBone diseaseSurgeryPathologyOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to analyze temporal bone necrosis and classify its diagnosis and treatment according to extent of necrosis and cause. METHODS AND MATERIAL: Twenty-six cases of temporal bone necrosis were retrospectively reviewed between 1988 and 1997 at the University of British Columbia. RESULTS: Patients were classified on the basis of disease extent restricted to the tympanic bone or extension beyond the tympanic bone, as well as on the basis of the cause of disease; treatment based on classification. Patients with localized disease of the tympanic bone had minimal symptoms. Those with radiation-induced localized necrosis were less likely to respond to conservative medical management. Patients with diffuse disease were more likely to require surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Temporal bone necrosis comprises a spectrum of disease from idiopathic tympanic bone necrosis, which rarely requires surgery, to the more severe forms of radiation-induced diffuse temporal bone necrosis that may cause life-threatening complications requiring surgical intervention.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtolaryngologySame topicOral health in cancer treatmentFrench-language works237,207