Ear Fullness as a Symptom of Endolymphatic Hydrops in non-Ménière’s Patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: 1) To determine if unexplained ear fullness might be a symptom of endolymphatic hydrops (EH) by using Electrocochleography (ECochG) SP/AP area and amplitude ratios. 2) To assess if individuals with unexplained ear fullness without vertigo differ significantly from individuals with ear fullness due to Ménière's disease (MD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a case-control study in our tertiary care center, we evaluated 62 ears across 49 patients, including 18 normal healthy ears across 12 control patients, 26 ears with unexplained ear fullness across 20 patients (6 had bilateral symptoms of ear fullness), and 18 ears with definite MD across 17 patients (1 bilateral disease). Outcome measures were SP/AP amplitude and area ratio, hearing threshold, and air-bone gap. RESULTS: The analysis of auditory thresholds revealed a significant group effect for air conduction [F(2,50)=49.627; p<0.001] and for bone conduction [F(2,50)=45.625; p<0.001]. We observed significant differences between MD (36.36±4.87) and control patients (19.85±2.55) (p=0.015) for amplitude ratio. Moreover, significant differences were noted between MD (5.32±1.06) and controls (1.36±0.07) (p=0.035) and between ear fullness (5.16±1.17) and controls (p=0.026) for the area ratio parameter. No significant correlation was observed between SP/AP area or amplitude ratios and air-bone gap at any of the tested frequencies. The amplitude ratio was not significantly different between the ear fullness and control groups (p=0.406). The area and amplitude ratios did not reveal significant differences between MD and ear fullness (p=1.00). CONCLUSION: EH can be present even in the absence of vertigo and when patients report unexplained ear fullness. This study, to our knowledge, is the first to possibly allow early identification of cochlear EH in patients suffering from ear fullness without vertigo.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".