Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) recently published guidelines on the treatment of tinnitus. This paper examines the possible impact of those guidelines on otologic practice. DESIGN: A survey was sent to the members of the American Neurotology Society before and after the publication of Clinical practice guideline: tinnitus. The goals of this study were to see if the guidelines changed attitudes of otologists, confirm what treatments and explanations are being used in the field before and after the guidelines were published. MAIN OUTCOMES: Five hundred fifty-eight surveys were sent out and there were 216 responses. Otologists generally seemed to practice in accordance with the recommendations of the guidelines even before these were published. Drugs and sound therapies were not commonly used for primary tinnitus either before or after publication of the guidelines. One treatment that otologists seemed to have confidence in that was omitted from the guidelines was surgical treatment of hearing loss. CONCLUSION: Opinions regarding the treatment of tinnitus vary considerably. The AAO-HNS clinical practice guideline: tinnitus has not significantly altered the practices of otologists, but the guidelines provide meaningful, important information for other clinicians who deal infrequently with tinnitus.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".