Reply to the Letter About the “Bilateral Simultaneous Caloric Test for Superior Semicircular Canal Evaluation”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Reply We are very grateful to the author (s) of this letter for taking the time to read and respond to our editorial (1). With all our respect, some of the argument are good and deserve careful consideration, although we do not find them extremely compelling. Dr. Miniconi in his abstract presented at the 116th meeting of the French ORL society in 2009 stated that the bilateral simultaneous caloric stimulation test is a novel technique; however, we reported in our article different old references describing this test. As far as 1928, different techniques of a bilateral simultaneous caloric test have been mentioned in the literature. Fisher was the first to mention the use of bilateral simultaneous caloric stimulation of the ears. In 1937, Aubry and Ombredanne reported the simultaneous bilateral irrigation of the ears using 10 ml of water at 25°C (2). Later in 1976, Brookler was more specific and described his method for simultaneous bilateral caloric stimulation using 250 ml of hot and cold water for a period of 60 seconds for each stimulation (3). Based on these information reported in the discussion of our manuscript, we did not attribute to ourselves this technique of bilateral simultaneous caloric stimulation neither to Dr. Miniconi. In addition, we did not pretend that this technique is a new innovation, a novel test, or a Nehme-Saliba test. During the preparation of the study, we discussed with Dr. Miniconi and with many other physicians in the world. We wanted our study to be well designed and analyzed by different expert in the vestibular system. Dr. Miniconi did not participate directly to the evaluation of the obliterated superior canal. The objective of our study was not to present a new caloric stimulation test but to verify if the obliterated superior semicircular canal can be stimulated using the modified “bilateral simultaneous caloric test.” We call it “modified” because of the variation we added compared with Aubry and Ombredanne, to Brooker as well to Miniconi. We presented our preliminary result a year after the presentation of Dr. Miniconi, in the 117th meeting of the French ORL society in 2010 in Paris, France (abstract 678) (4); Dr. Miniconi did not notice his interest to participate to the study, and he did not send any comment. However, if we knew that Dr. Miniconi is interested to be one in an acknowledgment list or even a coauthor of the publication performed 2 years ago, it was really a pleasure for us to invite him. Issam Saliba MD, FRCSC Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Montreal University Hospital Center (CHUM) Montreal–Quebec, Canada CHUM–Hôpital Notre Dame Otolaryngology department 1560 Sherbrooke East Montreal, QC, H2L 4M1, Canada [email protected]
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 | 0.003 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".