Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b>Objective:</b>To evaluate the relationship between vestibular function and curative effect in patients with severe sudden hearing loss.<b>Method:</b>The vestibular function of 79 patients with severe hearing loss was examined by video-nystagmography (VNG) and vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP).<b>Result:</b>There were significant differences between the two test outcomes (<i>P</i><0.01) in the severe group (27 cases). The effective rate of both VNG and VEMP normal group was 100%, the effective rate that both VNG and VEMP were abnormal was 41.7%. In the profound severe group (52 cases) there was also a significant difference between the two test results and the therapeutic effect (<i>P</i><0.01). The effective rate of both VNG and VEMP normal group was 76.9%. The effective rate was 34.6% with both VNG and VEMP abnormal. There was no significant difference between hearing loss degree and curative effect.<b>Conclusion:</b>The VNG and VEMP examinations in patients with severe sudden hearing loss are valuable in evaluating the efficacy. Both VNG and VEMP were abnormal with the worst curative effect.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".