MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790891622 · doi:10.28920/dhm47.2.97-109

Scuba diving and otology: a systematic review with recommendations on diagnosis, treatment and post-operative care

2017· review· en· W2790891622 on OpenAlexaff
Devon Livingstone, Kristine A. Smith, Beth Lange

Bibliographic record

VenueDiving and Hyperbaric Medicine Journal · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOtologyScuba divingMedicineDecompression sicknessOtorhinolaryngologyMiddle earNeurosurgeryDecompression illnessIntensive care medicineSurgeryDecompression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scuba diving is a popular recreational and professional activity with inherent risks. Complications related to barotrauma and decompression illness can pose significant morbidity to a diver's hearing and balance systems. The majority of dive-related injuries affect the head and neck, particularly the outer, middle and inner ear. Given the high incidence of otologic complications from diving, an evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and treatment of otic pathology is a necessity. We performed a systematic and comprehensive literature review including the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of otologic pathology related to diving. This included inner, middle, and outer ear anatomic subsites, as well as facial nerve complications, mal de debarquement syndrome, sea sickness and fitness to dive recommendations following otologic surgery. Sixty-two papers on diving and otologic pathology were included in the final analysis. We created a set of succinct evidence-based recommendations on each topic that should inform clinical decisions by otolaryngologists, dive medicine specialists and primary care providers when faced with diving-related patient pathology.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations53
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiving and Hyperbaric Medicine JournalSame topicCardiovascular and Diving-Related ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207