Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: The use of intratympanic steroids (ITS) has proliferated over the past 10-15 years to include treatments for inner ear disorders, like Ménière's Disease (MD) and sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL). The aim of this study was to review the clinical trials of ITS for inner ear disorders. METHODS: PubMed and Ovid Medline databases were searched from 1966 to present for clinical trials on ITS in the treatment of MD and SSNHL. Studies were evaluated based on comparability and internal and external validity. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were identified in total, 13 studies on MD and 25 studies on SSNHL. Most studies lacked placebo controls. Only 3 studies were double-blinded randomized prospective trials. Overall, there were heterogeneous steroid doses, treatment protocols, previous treatments, and definitions of disease and improvement. CONCLUSION: There are no good studies on ITS that meet the criteria of comparability, internal validity, and external validity. It is difficult to compare studies due to the heterogeneous nature of the data. More rigorously designed studies are required to determine the efficacy of this treatment, the optimal steroid to use, and the best treatment regimen.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".