Tympanic membrane retraction: An endoscopic evaluation of staging systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The objectives of this work were to assess inter- and intraobserver variability of different staging systems for tympanic membrane (TM) retraction using otoendoscopy in children at risk of retraction from cleft palate, to compare hearing level with stage of retraction, and to propose optimum characteristics for monitoring TM retraction with endoscopy. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Endoscopic images of 245 TMs of children with cleft palate (mean age, 13.0 years) were assessed on two separate occasions by six observers using the Sade and Erasmus staging systems for pars tensa retraction and Tos system for pars flaccida retraction. Intra- and interobserver agreements were calculated. Extent of TM retraction was compared with hearing threshold. TMs with middle ear effusion, tympanostomy tubes, or perforation were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 108 ear drums (44%) were rated as having pars tensa and/or flaccida retraction. Intraobserver agreement was fair to moderate (kappa = 0.3-0.37, P < .001) for the different staging systems and interobserver agreement slight to moderate (0.18-0.41 P < .001). Conductive hearing loss (four-tone average air-bone gap >25 dB HL) was present in 11 ears (15%). No correlation between hearing threshold and retraction stage was found. Isolated tensa retraction onto the promontory increased hearing threshold more than retraction involving the incus (P = .02; analysis of variance). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic image capture may provide a clear objective record of TM retraction, but current staging systems have unsatisfactory reliability when applied to such images, and retraction stage correlates poorly with hearing threshold. Modification of retraction assessment to improve validity and clinical relevance is proposed.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".