Tympanic membrane changes following paediatric cochlear implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of cochlear implantation on the tympanic membrane in children. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Eighty-four cochlear implant recipients were recruited at a vaccination clinic. The implanted ear was examined and the appearance of the external auditory canal and tympanic membrane documented. Demographic and clinical data such as age at implantation, duration of implantation, preoperative tympanic membrane appearance and preoperative middle-ear function were obtained retrospectively from hospital charts. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients (46.9%) were found to have abnormal tympanic membrane findings. The most common abnormality was scarring of the tympanic membrane in the vicinity of the electrode array. No statistically significant association was found between the tympanic membrane findings and demographic and clinical variables. CONCLUSIONS: Cochlear implantation may cause tympanic membrane scarring. The significance of the scarring is unclear. Dehiscence of the posterior wall of the external auditory canal should be avoided to prevent retraction pocket formation of the tympanic membrane.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".