MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185244650 · doi:10.1177/01945998211029541

Mechanics of Total Drum Replacement Tympanoplasty Studied With Wideband Acoustic Immittance

2021· article· en· W3185244650 on OpenAlexaff
Kristine Elisabeth Eberhard, Salwa Masud, Inge M. Knudson, Keshinisuthan Kirubalingam, Hamza Khalid, Aaron K. Remenschneider, Hideko Heidi Nakajima

Bibliographic record

VenueOtolaryngology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersHarvard Catalyst
KeywordsTympanoplastyFasciaMedicineImmittanceConductive hearing lossMiddle earTympanic Membrane PerforationTympanometryEardrumSurgeryAudiometryHearing lossAudiologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Poor hearing outcomes often persist following total drum replacement tympanoplasty. To understand the mechanics of the reconstructed eardrum, we measured wideband acoustic immittance and compared the mechanical characteristics of fascia‐grafted ears with the normal tympanic membrane. Study Design Prospective comparison study. Setting Tertiary care center. Methods Patients who underwent uncomplicated total drum replacement with temporalis fascia grafts were identified. Ears with healed grafts, an aerated middle ear, and no other conductive abnormalities were included. All patients underwent pre‐ and postoperative audiometry. Wideband acoustic immittance was measured with absorbance and impedance computed. Fascia‐grafted ears were compared with normal unoperated ears. Results Eleven fascia‐grafted ears without complications were included. Postoperatively, the median air‐bone gap was 15 dB (250‐4000 Hz), with variation across frequency and between ears. Fifty‐six control ears were included. Absorbance of fascia‐grafted ears was significantly lower than that of normal ears at 1 to 4 kHz ( P <. 05) but similar below 1 kHz. Impedance magnitude demonstrated deeper and sharper resonant notches in fascia‐grafted ears than normal ears ( P <. 05), suggesting lower mechanical resistance of the fascia graft. Conclusion The mechanics of fascia‐grafted ears differ from the normal tympanic membrane by having lower absorbance at mid‐ to high frequencies and thus poor sound transmission. The lower resistance in fascia‐grafted ears may be due to poor coupling of the graft to the malleus. To improve sound transmission, grafts for tympanic membrane reconstructions would benefit from refined mechanical properties.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtolaryngologySame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207