MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592741824 · doi:10.1186/s40463-017-0194-2

Measuring Cochlear Duct Length – a historical analysis of methods and results

2017· review· en· W2592741824 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversities Space Research Association
KeywordsCochlear ductCochleaComputer scienceVisualizationCochlear implantationMeasure (data warehouse)Cochlear implantArtificial intelligenceBiomedical engineeringData miningMedicineAudiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cochlear Duct Length (CDL) has been an important measure for the development and advancement of cochlear implants. Emerging literature has shown CDL can be used in preoperative settings to select the proper sized electrode and develop customized frequency maps. In order to improve post-operative outcomes, and develop new electrode technologies, methods of measuring CDL must be validated to allow usage in the clinic. PURPOSE: The purpose of this review is to assess the various techniques used to calculate CDL and provide the reader with enough information to make an informed decision on how to conduct future studies measuring the CDL. RESULTS: The methods to measure CDL, the modality used to capture images, and the location of the measurement have all changed as technology evolved. With recent popularity and advancement in computed tomography (CT) imaging in place of histologic sections, measurements of CDL have been focused at the lateral wall (LW) instead of the organ of Corti (OC), due to the inability of CT to view intracochlear structures. After analyzing results from methods such as directly measuring CDL from histology, indirectly reconstructing the shape of the cochlea, and determining CDL based on spiral coefficients, it was determined the three dimensional (3D) reconstruction method is the most reliable method to measure CDL. 3D reconstruction provides excellent visualization of the cochlea and avoids errors evident in other methods. Due to the number of varying methods with varying accuracies, certain guidelines must be followed in the future to allow direct comparison of CDL values between studies. CONCLUSION: After summarizing and analyzing the interesting history of CDL measurements, the use of standardized guidelines and the importance of CDL for future cochlear implant developments is emphasized for future studies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.233
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it