MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077910498 · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31829c964d

Assessment of Ear Disorders Using Power Reflectance

2013· review· en· W2077910498 on OpenAlexaff
Hideko Heidi Nakajima, John J. Rosowski, Navid Shahnaz, Susan E. Voss

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
KeywordsMiddle earOssiclesMedicineConductive hearing lossStapesInner earSemicircular canalEar canalAudiologyOuter earAnatomyRadiologyVestibular system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the effect of various pathologies on power reflectance (PR) and absorbance measured in human adults. The pathologies studied include those affecting the tympanic membrane, the middle-ear ossicles, the middle-ear cavity, the inner ear, and intracranial pressure. Interesting pathology-induced changes in PR that are statistically significant have been reported. Nevertheless, because measurements of PR obtained from normal-hearing subjects have large variations and some pathology-induced changes are small, it can be difficult to use PR alone for differential diagnosis. There are, however, common clinical situations without reliable diagnostic methods that can benefit from PR measurements. These conditions include ears with a normal-appearing tympanic membrane, aerated middle-ear cavity, and unknown etiology of conductive hearing loss. PR measurements in conjunction with audiometric measurements of air–bone gap have promise in differentiating among stapes fixation, ossicular discontinuity, and superior semicircular canal dehiscence. Another possible application is to monitor an individual for possible changes in intracranial pressure. Descriptions of mechanisms affecting PR change and utilization of PR measurements in clinical scenarios are presented.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations76
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar and HearingSame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207