Evaluation of the SAMEO-ATO surgical classification in a Dutch cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Differences in the definition and classification of cholesteatoma hinders comparing of surgical outcomes of cholesteatoma. Uniform registration is necessary to allow investigators to share and compare their findings. For many years surgical cholesteatoma procedures were divided into two main groups: canal wall up mastoidectomy (CWU) and canal wall down mastoidectomy (CWD). Recently, mastoid obliteration can be added to both procedures. Because of great variation within these main groups, the International Otology Outcome Group (IOOG) proposed the new SAMEO-ATO classification system to categorize tympanomastoid operations. The aim of our study was to correlate the mastoid bone extirpation (M-stage) with the contemporary (CWU, CWD with or without obliteration) system. METHODS: Demographic characteristics and type of performed surgery were registered for 135 cholesteatoma patients from sixteen hospitals, both secondary and tertiary care institutions, across the Netherlands. In addition, the surgical reports were collected, retrospectively classified according to the contemporary system and the new system and compared. Correlations of the outcomes were calculated. RESULTS: In total, there were 112 CWU and 14 CWD (both with or without obliteration) suitable for correlation analysis. Z test for correlation between the M-stage and CWU procedure was significant for M1a and M1b procedure and significant for M2c with the CWD procedure. CONCLUSION: The newly proposed SAMEO-ATO classification seems to be more detailed in the registration of surgical procedures than surgeons currently are used to. All M-stages of the SAMEO-ATO system are correlating well to the standard CWU and CWD except one 'in between' M-stage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".