MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138864762 · doi:10.1007/s00405-013-2812-6

A pilot randomized controlled trial comparing bismuth iodine paraffin paste external ear pack and no ear pack after middle ear surgery

2013· article· en· W2138864762 on OpenAlexaff
Faisal Javed, Russell Whitwell, Daniel Hajioff, Philip Robinson, David Rea, Iain MacLeod, Paul White, Desmond A. Nunez

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNorth Bristol NHS Trust
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryRandomized controlled trialMiddle earEar canalSignificant differenceDentistryRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To pilot a substantive randomized control trial comparing post-operative external ear canal pack with no ear pack after middle ear surgery, 32 adults undergoing primary posterior bony canal wall preserving middle ear surgery were randomized to have either a bismuth iodoform paraffin paste pack or no ear pack post-operatively. Outcome measures included clinician- and patient-recorded visual analogue scale scores for ear signs and symptoms at 3 weeks and 3 months and audiometric findings at 3 months post-operatively. There was no statistically significant inter-group difference in 3-week clinician and patient cumulative scores for ear signs and symptoms. There was also no significant difference in graft take rate, appearance of ear canals and audiometric results in either group at 3 months. No difference in ear symptoms, clinician findings or hearing was demonstrated between patients with a post-operative pack compared to those without a pack following middle ear surgery in this pilot study.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Archives of Oto-Rhino-LaryngologySame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207