Emerging artificial intelligence applications in otological imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To highlight the recent literature on artificial intelligence (AI) pertaining to otological imaging and to discuss future directions, obstacles and opportunities. RECENT FINDINGS: The main themes in the recent literature centre around automated otoscopic image diagnosis and automated image segmentation for application in virtual reality surgical simulation and planning. Other applications that have been studied include identification of tinnitus MRI biomarkers, facial palsy analysis, intraoperative augmented reality systems, vertigo diagnosis and endolymphatic hydrops ratio calculation in Meniere's disease. Studies are presently at a preclinical, proof-of-concept stage. SUMMARY: The recent literature on AI in otological imaging is promising and demonstrates the future potential of this technology in automating certain imaging tasks in a healthcare environment of ever-increasing demand and workload. Some studies have shown equivalence or superiority of the algorithm over physicians, albeit in narrowly defined realms. Future challenges in developing this technology include the compilation of large high quality annotated datasets, fostering strong collaborations between the health and technology sectors, testing the technology within real-world clinical pathways and bolstering trust among patients and physicians in this new method of delivering healthcare.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".