Reversed Ipsilateral Acoustic Reflex Pattern
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the characteristics and possible origin of reversed ipsilateral acoustic reflex. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: Sixty-three ears in 52 patients (mean age 37.6 years) with unilateral or bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and 45 age- and sex-matched persons as controls. METHODS: Audiometry and impedance audiometry examinations were studied retrospectively. Hearing test records were investigated, and patients with unilateral or bilateral sensorineural hearing loss were included. Forty-five age- and sex-matched persons served as controls. The ipsilateral and contralateral acoustic reflex patterns of these patients were investigated. Reflex-forming acoustic thresholds and latencies of ipsilateral reversed (positive) reflexes were compared with ipsilateral negative (upward) reflexes. RESULTS: The ipsilateral acoustic reflexes of 18 of 63 ears with sensorineural hearing loss were absent, and the remaining 45 were reversed (positive). A significant difference was found between ipsilateral reversed and ipsilateral negative acoustic reflex thresholds (p < .001) and latencies (p < .001). No statistically significant differences were found between ipsilateral and contralateral negative reflex latencies. CONCLUSIONS: The reversed acoustic reflex pattern is not an artifact but a physiologic event. This reflex does not appear to be related to stapedius or tensor tympani muscle contraction. We believe that the etiology of the reversed reflex is related to the system that contains the tympanic membrane, malleus, and incus and their ligaments but not the middle ear muscles.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".