Fibrous Dysplasia of the Temporal Bone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The management options for otologic symptoms (i.e., hearing loss, otorrhea) in patients with fibrous dysplasia of the temporal bone (FDTB) include either observation or otologic surgery. The objective of this review is to describe the hearing outcomes in patients with FDTB to compare surgical intervention and conservative management to determine an evidence-based approach to patient management. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1995-April 5, 2013), MEDLINE (January 1948-April 5, 2013), EMBASE (January 1974-April 5, 2013), conference proceedings, and the reference lists of articles. STUDY SELECTION: Studies describing interventions or no intervention in patients with FDTB were included. Studies failing to report hearing outcomes were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts, read full-text articles, assessed quality, and extracted data. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventy-two studies involving 215 patients were included. Thirty-one studies (n = 49 patients), including three case series and 28 case reports, had sufficient information for analysis of hearing outcomes (Level 4 evidence). The surgical intervention showing the best hearing outcomes was canaloplasty, with improvement in 84% of patients (n = 16 patients) and stable hearing thresholds in 18% (n = 3 patients). CONCLUSION: The literature lacks consistent reporting of hearing outcomes after otologic surgery in FDTB. Level 4 evidence suggests that an improvement in hearing thresholds is achievable in most patients when the disease involves the external ear canal. A management algorithm is proposed using the available evidence.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".