Electrogustometric assessment of taste after otologic surgery in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Long term taste dysfunction after otologic surgery has never been characterized in children. The aim of this study is to determine the rates of gustatory dysfunction in normal and postotologic surgery in children. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: One hundred sixty children visiting a tertiary pediatric otolaryngology clinic, 4 to 18 years of age, were recruited. Surgical groups included patients who had undergone tympanoplasty, combined approach mastoidectomy, modified radical mastoidectomy, and unilateral and bilateral cochlear implantation. They were then tested using a Rion TR-06 electrogustometer (Sensonics, Inc., Haddon Heights, NJ) using a standardized protocol to assess chorda tympani nerve function. An abnormal gustometry result was defined as any recording of > or =16 dB or a difference of 6 dB between ears. RESULTS: The control group had a 9% (5/61) abnormal electrogustometric threshold rate. Rates of dysfunction after surgery were: tympanoplasty (27%, 4/15), combined approach mastoidectomy (30%, 11/29), modified radical mastoidectomy (50%, 4/8). Unilateral cochlear implantation yielded a 26% (7/27) per ear risk of dysfunction, whereas bilateral cochlear implantation had a 5% (2/40) per ear risk. CONCLUSIONS: There is a 9% baseline level of electrogustometric abnormality in the pediatric population, which suggests a subclinical level of gustatory dysfunction. Normal electrogustometry was found in 50% of children after modified radical mastoidectomy, suggesting a degree of neural regenerative capacity. Finally, cochlear implantation, using newer surgical techniques (in the bilateral cochlear implant group) has a low risk for causing gustatory dysfunction, reducing concerns over the safety profile of bilateral cochlear implantation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".