Practical applicability of the STAMCO and ChOLE classification in cholesteatoma care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare cholesteatoma care internationally and to evaluate outcomes, ear surgeons must use the same terminology. However, a clear universal definition on how to describe the extension, destruction and accompanying morbidity caused by the cholesteatoma is lacking. The practical applicability by means of interrater agreement is assessed for the STAMCO and the ChOLE classification. METHODS: A total of 134 adult patients derived from the nationwide multicentre study in the Netherlands, entitled Dutch Cholesteatoma Data (DCD) were included. Retrospective analysis of 134 surgical reports according to the STAMCO and ChOLE classification for localisation/extension of the cholesteatoma, complication status and ossicular chain status. Both the percentage agreement and the interrater agreement were determined for each item of the classifications and interrater agreement was compared between the classifications as a whole. RESULTS: Differences in interrater agreement were found for both the localisation/extension of the cholesteatoma and ossicular chain status. STAMCO classification derived from the surgical report scored better on the localisation/extension of the cholesteatoma, whereas the ChOLE classification derived from the surgical report scored better on the status of the ossicular chain. In both classifications, complication status had a low agreement level but was also poorly registered in the surgical reports. CONCLUSION: Both STAMCO and ChOLE will be beneficial in uniform registration of cholesteatoma pathology in practice. Modifications proposed for both classifications may make them even more practical applicable in the future. A common denominator obtained from these two classifications may be incorporated in a standardised surgical report to facilitate evaluation which make outcomes transferable towards both classifications.
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 | 0.076 | 0.172 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".