A randomized double‐blind controlled trial of phosphorylcholine‐coated tympanostomy tube versus standard tympanostomy tube in children with recurrent acute and chronic otitis media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the postoperative complication rates of phosphorylcholine-coated fluoroplastic tympanostomy tubes versus uncoated fluoroplastic tympanostomy tubes. METHODS: A prospective randomized double-blind controlled trial in children with recurrent acute otitis media and chronic otitis media with effusion; 240 children were randomized to receive a phosphorylcholine-coated tube in one ear and an uncoated tube in the other. Postoperatively, patients were assessed at 2 weeks and 4, 8, 12, 18, and 24 months to ascertain the incidence of otorrhea, tube lumen blockage, and early extrusion. RESULTS: Out of 240 children, 5 withdrew and 16 were lost to early follow-up. The mean age was 43.8 months. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of postoperative otorrhea, tube blockage, and extrusion. CONCLUSIONS: Phosphorylcholine-coated fluoroplastic ventilation tubes do not offer any advantages over uncoated standard fluoroplastic tympanostomy 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".