MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022468203 · doi:10.1177/0194599814536686

Acute Mastoiditis in Children with Cochlear Implants: Is Explantation Required?

2014· review· en· W2022468203 on OpenAlexaff
Faisal Zawawi, Isabel Cardona, Olubunmi V. Akinpelu, Sam J. Daniel

Bibliographic record

VenueOtolaryngology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLCochrane LibraryMEDLINEMastoiditisNational libraryInclusion and exclusion criteriaCochlear implantSurgeryRandomized controlled trialAlternative medicinePsychological interventionOtitisAudiologyLibrary sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Acute mastoiditis is an uncommon but challenging condition when it occurs in children with cochlear implant. The literature is scarce as to the management of this condition with regards to explantation. The objective of the study is to determine the need for explantation in patients with cochlear implants who suffer from acute mastoiditis. DATA SOURCES: Online medical databases-PubMed, Ovid Medline, Ovid Medline in process, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Biosis, Google Scholar, and Scopus. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of all publications addressing the treatment of mastoiditis in cochlear implant children prior to November 2013 was conducted. Data were collected from online medical databases-PubMed, Ovid Medline, Ovid Medline in process, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Biosis, Google Scholar, and Scopus. The review was performed in 3 phases; an initial screening review of abstracts was performed, followed by a detailed review of full articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, and lastly a final review to extract data from selected articles. RESULTS: Twelve articles were found eligible for this systematic review including a total of 43 patients. Subperiosteal abscess was present in 14.3%. All patients received intravenous antibiotics as an initial treatment, and if needed, surgical intervention was performed. Only 1 patient required explantation (2.3%). CONCLUSION: Prompt, aggressive medical and if needed surgical therapy can help in saving the implant and result in a favorable outcome.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations29
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtolaryngologySame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207