Randomized Evaluation of the Audiologic Outcome of Ventilation Tube Insertion for Middle Ear Effusion in Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Complications after ventilation tube insertion for middle ear effusion in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma are frequent. This may compromise the overall benefit obtained from the procedure. This study evaluates the hearing improvement after tube insertion compared with observation alone to see if the benefits of the procedure outweigh its potential complications. DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Full clinical and emergency otolaryngologic services hospital in an academic institution. METHODS: Patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma and middle ear effusion were randomized for preradiotherapy ventilation tube insertion or observation. Audiologic assessment with a pure-tone audiogram was performed before the procedure, after ventilation tube insertion, and at fixed intervals after irradiation. Audiologic outcome was compared between the two groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Air-conduction threshold and air-bone gap on a pure-tone audiogram at different intervals after radiotherapy. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in hearing threshold changes between the two groups for up to 4 years. Both groups had air-bone gap improvement following radiotherapy and the improvement was not significantly different between the two groups. The proportion of patients with closure of the air-bone gap on follow-up was not different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ventilation tube insertion before radiotherapy did not offer additional hearing benefit when compared with observation alone. The procedure had no deleterious effect on hearing for up to 4 years.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".