MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125653660 · doi:10.1017/s0022215114002710

Intratympanic steroid injection as a salvage treatment for sudden sensorineural hearing loss

2014· article· en· W2125653660 on OpenAlexaff
S. Belhassen, Issam Saliba

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Laryngology & Otology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMethylprednisoloneHearing lossAnesthesiaSensorineural hearing lossAudiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of intratympanic methylprednisolone injections for treating sudden sensorineural hearing loss. METHOD: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients suffering from sudden sensorineural hearing loss with no recovery after oral steroids. Patients were given up to three intratympanic methylprednisolone injections at one-week intervals. They were classified according to their functional hearing class, remission was monitored and potential factors affecting prognosis were analysed. RESULTS: Intratympanic injections provide effective salvage therapy for sudden sensorineural hearing loss (p = 0.039). Changes in pure tone average and speech discrimination score were analysed following intratympanic methylprednisolone injections. The pure tone average reached a plateau after the second injection; however, the speech discrimination score improved until after the third injection. Hearing improvement after intratympanic injections mainly occurred at low frequencies. The interval between symptoms appearing and intratympanic injections starting was not significantly associated with remission (p = 0.680). CONCLUSION: A delay between symptom onset and the first intratympanic methylprednisolone injection does not seem to affect prognosis.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Laryngology & OtologySame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207