The AAO-HNS Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium Guidelines for the diagnosis and evaluation of therapy in Meniere's disease: have they been applied in the published literature of the last decade?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The AAO–HNS Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium Guidelines for the diagnosis and evaluation of therapy in Menière's disease: have they been applied in the published literature of the last decade? To assess how effectively the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium (AAO–HNS CHE) guidelines for the diagnosis and evaluation of therapy in Menière's disease have been applied in the last 11 years of published literature. This was a MedLine-based review. Some 79.7% of papers attempted to use the AAO–HNS CHE guidelines. However, only 50% of these publications managed to use the AAO–HNS CHE criteria in the diagnosis and evaluation of therapy correctly. In order to advance our understanding of this condition, improved application of the AAO–HNS CHE guidelines by authors and editors alike is required in the reporting of results of the therapy of Menière's disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".