MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Auditory Manifestations of Keratitis‐Ichthyosis‐Deafness (KID) Syndrome

2002· article· en· W2095164086 on OpenAlexaff
Yvonne M. Szymko-Bennett, Laura Russell, Sherri J. Bale, Andrew J. Griffith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Laryngoscope · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnexins and lens biology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Children's Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
KeywordsMedicineAudiologyAudiogramHearing lossAudiometrySensorineural hearing lossAuditory neuropathyDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the auditory manifestations of Keratitis-Ichthyosis-Deafness (KID) syndrome, a rare genodermatosis characterized by follicular hyperkeratosis, vascularizing keratitis, and congenital hearing loss. STUDY DESIGN: Five individuals with sporadic KID syndrome were evaluated in the outpatient audiology clinic at the Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health. METHODS: Audiologic examinations included pure-tone audiometry, speech audiometry, and middle ear immittance testing. Auditory brainstem responses and otoacoustic emissions were analyzed in 2 subjects. RESULTS: Four subjects had prelingual, bilateral, profound sensorineural hearing loss, whereas the fifth subject had significant residual hearing that exhibited no progression on serial audiograms. All 5 subjects had a history of non-erosive keratosis obturans and cutaneous cysts in the external ear canals that prevented continuous use of ear molds. CONCLUSIONS: The sensorineural hearing loss in KID syndrome is generally prelingual and profound. This combination of auditory and cutaneous phenotypes is similar to those previously reported for KID syndrome. KID syndrome presents a difficult challenge for communication rehabilitation because keratitis may impair the perception of sign and spoken language, and the cutaneous manifestations routinely curtail use of external amplification devices.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations45
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LaryngoscopeSame topicConnexins and lens biologyFrench-language works237,207