A Pilot Study to Assess the Vestibular Apparatus Function with Videonystagmography During Chronic Otitis Media with Effusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of chronic middle ear effusion (CMEE) on balance and equilibrium. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective study controlling two groups of children. The active arm consisted of children having a unilateral or bilateral CMEE that persisted for at least 3 months. The control group consisted of children presenting with normal middle ear. Children and parents in both groups were questioned about any symptom of vertigo, dizziness, disequilibrium or child's tendency to fall. ENT exam included an assessment with pneumatic and microscopic otoscopy, evaluation of the vestibular system with the Romberg test, the Fukuda test, the head-shaking test and the Starwalk test. RESULTS: The study group consisted of 15 children (mean = 6.5 years, SD = 2; 10 females and 5 males). The control group consisted also of 15 children (mean = 7.2 years, SD = 1.8; 8 females and 7 males). The duration of MEE was between 3 and 12 months (mean = 8 months). Three children (20%) in the study group had a history of vertigo, imbalance, disequilibrium and/or tendency to fall. None of the children in the control group had such a history (p = 0.22); Five children in the study group had abnormal head-shaking test, Fukuda and/or Starwalk tests (33.33%). Two children in the control group had such a finding (13.33%) (p = 0.39). Romberg test was normal in all children in both groups. In the study group, one child showed positional and spontaneous nystagmus on VNG testing. Another one showed positional nystagmus. Hence, 2 children had abnormal findings on VNG (13.33%). In the control group, VNG was normal in all children (p = 0.46). Tympanometry showed a type B curve in 26 ears, a type C curve in 3 ears and type A in one ear. In the control group all patients presented a type A curve. CONCLUSION: This paper describes the first study using VNG in a population of children with CMEE. The presence of balance disturbances associated or not with hearing loss is of paramount importance to the clinician as to the indications of myringotomy with a tube intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".