Effects of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Treatment on Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions in Patients with Urinary Lithiasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the effects of electrohydraulic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) on the transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) of the patients on whom ESWL was applied for urinary stones. METHODS: The study group consisted of 10 patients (7 male, 3 female) with unilateral urinary lithiasis on whom ESWL was applied in one course and 20 of their ears. The control group was chosen from patients who attended the Otolaryngology and Urology departments. Ten patients (7 male, 3 female) without urinary stones and ear problems and 20 of their ears constituted the control group. Only patients with normal hearing levels were included in the study. TEOAEs were recorded before the ESWL application (B-ESWL), on the first day (A-ESWL-1), and on day 15 (A-ESWL-15). RESULTS: At B-ESWL, the mean stimulus for the control group was significantly higher than that of the study group. Three kilohertz percentage values were significantly decreased on A-ESWL-1. The difference between A-ESWL-1 and A-ESWL-15 and between B-ESWL and A-ESWL-15 of the study group at 3.0 kHz% was not significant. CONCLUSION: It was thought that the reason for only temporary damage at 3.0 kHz was a result of the resonance effect of the external auditory canal. It was concluded that no damage on the other frequencies was due to protective earheadings and short exposure time to the noise. Since all of our patients had protective earheadings on both ears during the ESWL procedure, they may have been protected from any permanent damage of the inner ear and hairy cells of the cochlea.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".