Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Bilateral Ménière's disease treatment can be extremely challenging and, like its unilateral variant, remains highly controversial. There are few articles in the literature that have focused specifically on the treatment of bilateral Ménière's disease, despite significant numbers of unilateral cases evolving toward bilaterality - a process which complicates management and is not simple to foresee. This study reviews the most up-to-date concepts in its diagnosis and treatment, with a special focus on recent advances. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent advances in electrocochleography, vestibular-evoked myogenic potential, and intratympanic gadolinium-based contrast agent MRI may have the potential to diagnose bilateral endolymphatic hydrops, and predict unilateral to bilateral Ménière's disease progression. Although more prospective studies are necessary, recent studies show that intermittent pressure therapy (Meniett device), intratympanic steroids, and endolymphatic sac surgery appear to be efficacious and well tolerated nonablative management options. Moreover, triple semicircular canal occlusion surgery has recently been used successfully in Ménière's disease. SUMMARY: Bilateral Ménière's disease can be challenging to diagnose via clinical suspicion and pure-tone audiometry alone. Therefore, adjunctive diagnostic tools including electrocochleography, vestibular-evoked myogenic potential, and intratympanic gadolinium-based contrast agent MRI are of even greater value, and may predict progression to bilaterality - allowing better optimization of treatment. Ablative treatments are relatively contraindicated due to the risks of bilateral vestibular and cochlear hypofunction. Nonablative treatments such as the Meniett device, intratympanic steroids, and endolymphatic sac surgery appear to be efficacious, and useful alternatives after conservative measures fail. Systemic aminoglycoside therapy is reserved for only the most severe and intractable cases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".