The Feasibility of Eustachian Tube Dilation With a Standard Endovascular Balloon: A Comparative Cadaver Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Balloon dilation of the eustachian tube is a new therapeutic option for eustachian tube dysfunction. One of the limiting factors of wider adoption of this technique in many parts of the world is the high cost of the devices, in spite of regulatory approval of safety. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the performance and usability of standard less-expensive endovascular balloons for eustachian tube dilation in comparison to an approved device in a preclinical study. STUDY DESIGN: Comparative cadaver feasibility study. SETTING: University tertiary care facility. METHODS: Ten eustachian tube dilations were performed with an approved eustachian tube dilation device. Ten other procedures were carried out with an endovascular balloon of similar dimensions. Cone beam computerized tomography was performed to evaluate the extent of dilation and possible damages. The lumen and mucosal lining were inspected endoscopically post-dilation. Volume measurements were compared before and after the procedure in both groups using contrast enhancement. RESULTS: All 20 eustachian tube dilations were carried out successfully. No tissue damages could be identified on cone-beam computerized tomography or via endoscopic examination. There was a statistically significant difference of eustachian tube volumes between pre- and post-dilations, with no statistically significant difference between the devices. CONCLUSION: Eustachian tube dilation with a less costly endovascular balloon achieved similar results to an approved eustachian tube dilation device. No damages or any other safety concerns were identified in a cadaver study.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".