MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The links between allergy and otitis media with effusion

2006· review· en· W2085557328 on OpenAlexaff
Ted L. Tewfik, Bruce Mazer

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head & Neck Surgery · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOtitisEffusionAllergyAllergic inflammationImmunologyMiddle earDermatologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this review we will examine evidence indicating that allergic inflammation is present in middle ear effusion. We will also discuss several of the problems relating to the diagnosis of allergy and allergic sensitization, and why anti-allergy treatments have been unsuccessful. This will provide a rationale for future studies in the field linking allergic inflammation with otitis media with effusion. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent findings in atopic children demonstrated higher levels of eosinophils, T lymphocytes, and interleukin-4+ and interleukin-5+ cells compared with nonatopic patients. T-helper 2 cells and cytokines were found not only in middle ear effusions in atopic children but also in specimens from adenoid tissue. This demonstrates a strong correlation between allergic reaction in the middle ear and the upper airway. SUMMARY: In summary, as our knowledge of the allergic and nonallergic influences on inflammation broadens, the paradigms of treatment may be altered. The accumulating experimental and clinical data suggest that it may be wiser to screen every child with otitis media with effusion for allergic rhinitis and ultimately to manage those with allergic inflammation differently to nonatopic individuals with otitis media with effusion.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations51
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head & Neck SurgerySame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207