MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exostosis of the External Auditory Canal: A Technical Note

2002· article· en· W2029832607 on OpenAlexaff
Neil S. Longridge

Bibliographic record

VenueOtology & Neurotology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExostosisOtologyCholesteatomaAuditory canalEar canalSurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe the author's method of managing occlusive exostosis of the external auditory canal. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Tertiary referral ambulatory otology clinic. PATIENTS: A case series of patients treated sequentially by the author over 15 years, all of whom had occlusive external auditory canal exostoses that could not be treated by medical management. INTERVENTION: Permeatal surgical removal of the anterior exostosis only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Surgical relief of occlusive external auditory canal disease by restoration of hearing and absence of infection with persistence of an external auditory canal and no symptoms of recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 8 men were treated by anterior exostosis removal. Follow-up continued on these patients for a period of 5 to 15 years after the operation, and none showed any evidence of recurrence or tendency to narrowing of the deep ear canal. One patient incurred a tympanic membrane perforation at escostosis surgery that was repaired during the operation. CONCLUSION: Anterior exostosis removal by a permeatal route is a safe, rapid, and effective method of relieving patients of occlusive external auditory canal exostosis. By leaving the posterior exostosis intact, patients are not put at risk for injury to the facial nerve, chorda tympani nerve, or ossicles. When the deep ear canal is drilled blind, there are no landmarks to indicate the true path of the external canal.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtology & NeurotologySame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207