MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022485708 · doi:10.2310/7070.2003.11249

Intratympanic Gentamicin for Intractable Meniere's Disease: 5-Year Follow-up

2003· article· en· W2022485708 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jason Atlas, Lorne S. Parnes

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVertigoMeniere's diseaseGentamicinTinnitusSurgeryPediatricsPhysical therapyAudiologyAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and morbidity of intratympanic gentamicin titration therapy on patients with incapacitating unilateral Meniere's disease. METHOD: The study consisted of a retrospective chart review and patient interviews. Sixty-eight patients had been followed for a minimum of 24 months and were reported on in an earlier study. Forty-six of these individuals were available for detailed follow-up at 5 years post-gentamicin therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Vertigo frequency, hearing status, personal disability ratings, and tinnitus level before and after gentamicin therapy were measured. RESULTS: Seventy-four percent of patients showed complete vertigo control and an additional 7% showed substantial vertigo control. There was also significant improvement in personal ratings of social and economic functioning. Overall, the group showed no combined statistically significant changes in any of the hearing parameters. CONCLUSION: Intratympanic gentamicin titration therapy provides excellent vertigo control, with a similarly significant improvement in both personal and occupational functioning.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations25
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207