MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103704810 · doi:10.1136/emj.19.1.43

Comparative prospective study of foreign body removal from external auditory canals of cadavers with right angle hook or cyanoacrylate glue

2002· article· en· W2103704810 on OpenAlexfundno aff
R McLaughlin

Bibliographic record

VenueEmergency Medicine Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicForeign Body Medical Cases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsMedicineAuditory canalCyanoacrylateForeign bodyCadaveric spasmHookSurgeryCadaverLeakOtorhinolaryngologyAnatomyDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Foreign bodies of the external auditory canal are a relatively common problem in emergency departments. Repeated attempts at removal with standard instrumentation can lead to significant ear injury. Recent case reports of using cyanoacrylate impregnated cotton buds suggest this is less traumatic and well tolerated by patients. No studies on this method have been performed. The objectives of this study were to identify whether there were significant differences in success rate, duration and injury caused by extracting beads from the external auditory canals of adult cadaveric ears using two different methods. This is the first study in a planned series of anatomical and clinical studies relating to foreign body extraction from the external auditory canal. METHODS: In this study the success rate, time taken and injury rate were assessed for removal of impacted spherical foreign bodies in the external auditory canals of cadavers using both a blunt right angle hook and cotton buds impregnated with cyanoacrylate glue. This process was performed by a specialist registrar in otolaryngology and repeated by a specialist registrar in emergency medicine. RESULTS: It was shown that both methods had a statistically similar success rate (two tailed binomial test p=0.5) and no injury was identified for either method. In addition the median extraction time for a right angle hook was 6 seconds and 42 seconds for cyanoacrylate. It was also noted that failed extraction was associated with a poor view of the foreign body in the external canal. This was caused by hair, a large tragus or tortuous external canal. CONCLUSIONS: The authors feel that cyanoacrylate impregnated cotton buds are as effective at removing impacted foreign bodies as a right angle hook but the process takes longer. It is believed that patients could tolerate this longer time as the cyanoacrylate method is in theory less traumatic.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmergency Medicine JournalSame topicForeign Body Medical CasesFrench-language works237,207