Retrospective air bone gap evaluation of patients with tympanic membrane central perforation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate hearing recovery and air-bone gap (ABG) before and after tympanoplasty surgery in patients with tympanic membrane central perforation. METHODS: Histories and audiological assessments of 160 cases (total of 26 ears from 22 patients; 11 men and 11 women) from patients who had undergone tympanoplasty surgery and hearing reconstruction due to tympanic membrane central perforation were evaluated. Pre-postoperative audiograms and the pure tone, air-bone hearing thresholds and ABG gains were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 38.6 years (± 16.04). The mean postoperative follow-up period was 13.4 months (± 15.5). The mean preoperative ABG was 25.36 dB (± 9.9) and postoperative ABG was 17.36 dB (± 11.68) (p = 0.001). When four groups were compared before surgery and after surgery period as 0-6 months, 6-12 months, 1-2 years and 2 years in terms of pre- and postoperative ABG values, no statistically significant difference was observed (p>0.05). All patients were divided into three groups: < 20 years of age; between the ages of 21-40; and, >41 years of age, and no statistically significant difference were found between the groups (p> 0.05). Surgeries of the patients 21-40 years of age were more successful (ABG gain) than other age groups. No statistically significant gender differences were found in ABG averages (p = 0.33), but clinical results were significantly better in women as compared with men. CONCLUSION: In patients with central tympanic membrane perforation, tympanoplasty surgery with temporal fascia is beneficial in terms of hearing recovery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".