Letter to the editor regarding ‘Evaluation of vitamin D levels in children with primary epistaxis’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To describe a multicenter study regarding surgical management of bilateral congenital cholesteatoma (BCC) and underline the importance of endoscopes in the management of this condition. In BCC, hearing preservation is more crucial than in unilateral cases. The endoscopic approach allows complete removal of cholesteatoma via a minimally invasive technique offering low residual disease rates while preserving the normal physiology of the middle ear and possibly the ossicular chain.Retrospective chart and surgical video review of patients with BCC who underwent surgery at Otolaryngology Department of Modena and Verona University Hospitals and the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.From 2002 to November 2016, six patients were identified with bilateral congenital cholesteatoma and included in this study. Pre-operative assessments, surgical treatments and outcomes were collected and described.The median age at presentation was 4 years (range 2–7 years). A microscopic post auricular tympanoplasty was performed in two ears, four underwent a canal wall up mastoidectomy procedure and in the other six a transcanal endoscopic approach (TEA) was used. No intra- or post-operative complications were observed in any patients. The mean follow up period was 54.5 months.When both ears are involved with congenital cholesteatoma, it is particularly important to use a minimally invasive technique that preserves normal ossicular and mastoid structure and function whenever possible. In many cases this can be achieved with TEA, even in young children. In addition the endoscope allows good surgical control of cholesteatoma removal from hidden recesses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".