MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Congenital cholesteatoma and cochlear implantation: Implications for management

2012· article· en· W2126095635 on OpenAlex
Janet Chung, Sharon L. Cushing, Adrian L. James, Karen A. Gordon, Blake C. Papsin

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochlear Implants International · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCholesteatomaMedicinePopulationIncidence (geometry)AudiologySensorineural hearing lossSurgeryHearing loss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Cholesteatoma is an uncommon condition that has occasionally been associated with cochlear implantation (CI). Cases of secondary acquired cholesteatoma have been described, in which intra-operative breech of the posterior canal wall is thought to be a contributing factor. Primary acquired cholesteatoma is not typically associated with congenital sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) or CI in children. Congenital cholesteatoma is a rarer entity yet with an incidence in the literature of 2‐4% of all cholesteatomas. We present lessons learned from our experience of congenital cholesteatoma in CI candidates. METHODS: Retrospective reviews of departmental CI and cholesteatoma databases in a tertiary/quaternary pediatric center were conducted. Cases of congenital cholesteatoma were identified. The proportion of congenital cholesteatoma cases in CI candidates was compared with number of acquired cholesteatoma. Optimum management of congenital cholesteatoma in CI candidates was reviewed. RESULTS: In our pediatric CI population, 2/794 patients (0.25%) were recognized as having a congenital cholesteatoma during their evaluation for CI. No cases of primary acquired cholesteatoma were identified in this population at presentation or at follow up to 18 years. DISCUSSION: The 0.25% incidence of congenital cholesteatoma in our population of CI patients is higher than expected of this rare condition. It is surprisingly common given the absence of any cases of primary acquired cholesteatoma, which is considerably more common even in the pediatric population. Both patients likely had an inherited form of hearing loss and a genetic contribution to the presence of congenital cholesteatoma cannot be excluded. The presence of congenital cholesteatoma has implications for the algorithm currently employed for the assessment of CI. We consider that surgery should be staged to ensure complete removal of the cholesteatoma before implantation. Thus bilateral CI should be provided sequentially rather than simultaneously in the presence of unilateral cholesteatoma.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.297 · 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