MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898010896 · doi:10.21037/ajo.2018.09.08

The assessment of pulsatile tinnitus—a systematic review of underlying pathologies and modern diagnostic approaches

2018· article· en· W2898010896 on OpenAlexaff
Kiera E. Grierson, Pascal Bou-Haidar, Jaymi Dumper, Paul A. Fagan

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Otolaryngology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiological weaponRadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingMedical physicsTinnitusRetrospective cohort studyMedical imagingNeuroimagingAudiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Pulsatile tinnitus (PT) is an auditory phenomenon that occurs in the absence of an external stimulus and presents as a humming or whooshing sound synchronous with the subject’s heartbeat. PT has many causes, ranging from the benign to the life threatening. In the following report, we focus on defining the most common causes of PT and explore changing approaches to diagnostic radiology used in the assessment of PT patients, with the goal of providing an updated and practical set of guidelines for the assessment of this complicated condition. Methods: A collection of case studies, retrospective reviews and technical reports were sourced from PubMed’s online database. The initial cohort was filtered by language and content, and then sorted according to patient demographics, presenting symptoms, imaging protocols and relative success of radiological investigations. Results: The most common causes of PT include vascular anomalies, benign or idiopathic intracranial hypertension (BIH/IIH), and certain middle ear masses. We recommend using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the primary imaging modality for investigating most cases of PT, due to an increase in sensitivity and decrease in medical risk for the patient compared to computed tomography (CT) and traditional angiography. We detail protocols for both basic and comprehensive MRI studies to be used in the assessment of PT and provide descriptions of common radiological findings with representative images for reference. Finally, we make an argument in favour of foregoing extensive imaging studies in cases of subjective idiopathic PT, where no risk factors can be identified in the patient’s medical history or physical examination. Conclusions: The diagnosis of pulsatile tinnitus should be guided by comprehensive clinical data and dominated by the conservative use of MRI. In subjective PT where no risk factors are present, we recommend foregoing extensive imaging.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0170.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicCerebral Venous Sinus ThrombosisFrench-language works237,207