Hearing results of 1145 stapedotomies evaluated with Amsterdam hearing evaluation plots
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the hearing results of a large series of primary stapedotomies, according to American Academy of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery guidelines and Amsterdam hearing evaluation plots. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: The charts for 1369 consecutive stapedotomy cases were reviewed; 1145 cases of primary stapedotomy were included. Raw data from the audiometric database were evaluated using Amsterdam hearing evaluation plots. The effect on outcomes of using different audiological parameters was analysed. RESULTS: A significant improvement was demonstrated in mean post-operative air conduction and speech reception thresholds, with no change in bone conduction. Air-bone gap closure of 10 dB or more was achieved in 82 per cent of cases. A 'dead ear' occurred in one patient (0.1 per cent). CONCLUSION: This study reports the largest series of primary stapedotomies evaluated with Amsterdam hearing evaluation plots. This method enables visual identification of successful and unfavourable results, providing more accurate and detailed presentation of surgical outcomes.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it