Artificial Intelligence Applications in Otology: A State of the Art Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are driving innovative new health care solutions. We aim to review the state of the art of AI in otology and provide a discussion of work underway, current limitations, and future directions. DATA SOURCES: Two comprehensive databases, MEDLINE and EMBASE, were mined using a directed search strategy to identify all articles that applied AI to otology. REVIEW METHODS: An initial abstract and title screening was completed. Exclusion criteria included nonavailable abstract and full text, language, and nonrelevance. References of included studies and relevant review articles were cross-checked to identify additional studies. CONCLUSION: The database search identified 1374 articles. Abstract and title screening resulted in full-text retrieval of 96 articles. A total of N = 38 articles were retained. Applications of AI technologies involved the optimization of hearing aid technology (n = 5; 13% of all articles), speech enhancement technologies (n = 4; 11%), diagnosis and management of vestibular disorders (n = 11; 29%), prediction of sensorineural hearing loss outcomes (n = 9; 24%), interpretation of automatic brainstem responses (n = 5; 13%), and imaging modalities and image-processing techniques (n = 4; 10%). Publication counts of the included articles from each decade demonstrated a marked increase in interest in AI in recent years. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This review highlights several applications of AI that otologists and otolaryngologists alike should be aware of given the possibility of implementation in mainstream clinical practice. Although there remain significant ethical and regulatory challenges, AI powered systems offer great potential to shape how healthcare systems of the future operate and clinicians are key stakeholders in this process.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".