Clinical Considerations for Routine Auditory and Vestibular Monitoring in Patients With Cystic Fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
and other bacterial infections in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF), there are no formalized recommendations describing approaches to implementation of guideline adherent ototoxicity monitoring as part of CF clinical care. Method This consensus statement was developed by the International Ototoxicity Management Working Group (IOMG) Ad Hoc Committee on Aminoglycoside Antibiotics to address the clinical need for ototoxicity management in CF patients treated with known ototoxic medications. These clinical protocol considerations were created using consensus opinion from a community of international experts and available evidence specific to patients with CF, as well as published national and international guidelines on ototoxicity monitoring. Results The IOMG advocates four clinical recommendations for implementing routine and guideline adherent ototoxicity management in patients with CF. These are (a) including questions about hearing, tinnitus, and balance/vestibular problems as part of the routine CF case history for all patients; (b) utilizing timely point-of-care measures; (c) establishing a baseline and conducting posttreatment evaluations for each course of intravenous ototoxic drug treatment; and (d) repeating annual hearing and vestibular evaluations for all patients with a history of ototoxic antibiotic exposure. Conclusion Increased efforts for implementation of an ototoxicity management program in the CF care team model will improve identification of ototoxicity signs and symptoms, allow for timely therapeutic follow-up, and provide the clinician and patient an opportunity to make an informed decision about potential treatment modifications to minimize adverse events. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16624366.
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 | 0.019 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".