MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599828515 · doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000001388

The Normal Adult Human Internal Auditory Canal: A Volumetric Multidetector Computed Tomography Study

2017· article· en· W2599828515 on OpenAlexaff
Fahad Essbaiheen, Tarek M. Hegazi, Lorne Rosenbloom

Bibliographic record

VenueOtology & Neurotology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWilcoxon signed-rank testNuclear medicineLateralityComputed tomographySpearman's rank correlation coefficientMultidetector computed tomographyMann–Whitney U testAnatomyRadiologyAudiologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that volumetric analysis of multidetector computed tomography (CT) images can be used to calculate the volume of the adult human internal auditory canal (IAC) reproducibly, and to describe the range of normal IAC volumes in the adult population with subgroup analysis of sex, age, and laterality. BACKGROUND: Previous studies of the IAC have typically used measurements in two dimensions or by using casts of cadavers to measure IAC volumes. This study is the first to report the normal ranges of IAC volumes measured by CT. METHODS: Two hundred eighty-one CT scans were assessed. Of the CT scans that met the inclusion criteria, a software package was used to manually contour the IACs in each subject to calculate the volumes in cubic millimeters. Subgroup analysis of laterality, sex, and age was evaluated. Interobserver agreement was calculated for the first 59 patients (118 canals). RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-nine scans (518 canals) met the inclusion criteria. The volumes ranged from 74 to 502 mm, with no statistically significant difference between left and right (p value = 0.69). In males, the range of volumes measured 74 to 502 mm while in females it ranged from 78 to 416 mm. Males had larger IAC volumes than females (Wilcoxon rank-sum test: S = 14,845.0, p value = 0.01 on the right, and S = 14,646, p value = 0.004 on the left). No correlation was found with age (Spearman: -0.10, p value = 0.09 on the right and -0.04, p value = 0.50 on the left). Excellent interobserver agreement was found. CONCLUSION: IAC volumes of normal adult subjects, measured by CT, were larger in males and not significantly different with respect to age or laterality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtology & NeurotologySame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207