MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103433848 · doi:10.1177/0194599813490141

Clinical Practice Guideline: Tympanostomy Tubes in Children—Executive Summary

2013· article· en· W2103433848 on OpenAlexaff
Richard M. Rosenfeld, Seth Schwartz, Melissa A. Pynnonen, David E. Tunkel, Heather M. Hussey, Jeffrey S. Fichera, Alison M. Grimes, Jesse M. Hackell, Melody Harrison, Helen Haskell, David S. Haynes, Tae W. Kim, Denis Lafreniere, Katie LeBlanc, Wendy L. Mackey, James L. Netterville, Mary Pipan, Nikhila Raol, Kenneth G. Schellhase

Bibliographic record

VenueOtolaryngology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsCochrane
FundersAmerican Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery
KeywordsGuidelineMedicineExecutive summaryTympanostomy tubeClinical PracticeOtorhinolaryngologyIntensive care medicineNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) has published a supplement to this issue featuring the new Clinical Practice Guideline: Tympanostomy Tubes in Children. To assist in implementing the guideline recommendations, this article summarizes the rationale, purpose, and key action statements. The 12 recommendations developed address patient selection, surgical indications for and management of tympanostomy tubes in children. The development group broadly discussed indications for tube placement, perioperative management, care of children with indwelling tubes, and outcomes of tympanostomy tube surgery. Given the lack of current published guidance on surgical indications, the group focused on situations in which tube insertion would be optional, recommended, or not recommended. Additional emphasis was placed on opportunities for quality improvement, particularly regarding shared decision making and care of children with existing tubes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.013

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 head0.318
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations92
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtolaryngologySame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207