Success Rates in Paediatric Tympanoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if the success of paediatric tympanoplasty is dependent on certain criteria, which are determinable prior to surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: An academic paediatric otolaryngology department. PATIENTS: Seventy-seven patients who had undergone tympanoplasty with or without ossicular reconstruction, but without mastoidectomy, between April 1997 and May 1999. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Status of the repaired tympanic membrane at last follow-up visit measured by otoscopic examination and with tympanometry. RESULTS: Eighty-nine tympanoplasties were performed during this period. The age range was 2.9 to 22 years. The success rate was 75% overall. For patients younger than 11 years (n = 43), the success rate was 82%, and for those 11 to 18 years (n = 44), it was 74%, which was not significantly different. In 18 patients 7.5 years or younger, the success rate was 79%. Perforation location, size, presence of myringosclerosis, status of the other ear or nose, history of the perforation, surgical approach, middle ear findings, canal packing, and gender were not shown to be significantly different between successful and unsuccessful tympanoplasty groups. CONCLUSION: These young patients had a good success rate post-tympanoplasty, which we believe reflects less severe disease. These results mitigate against delaying tympanoplasty in young children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".