MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W35580812 · doi:10.1055/s-0040-1715979

Distinguishing Healthy from Otosclerotic Ears: Effect of Probe-Tone Frequency on Static Immittance

2002· article· en· W35580812 on OpenAlexaff
Navid Shahnaz, Linda Polka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmittanceOtosclerosisAudiologyTone (literature)MedicinePure toneAcousticsPhysicsHearing loss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diagnostic utility of static immittance (SI) with respect to distinguishing healthy from otosclerotic ears was investigated at different probe-tone frequencies in 68 healthy ears and 36 ears with surgically confirmed otosclerosis. Because one effect of otosclerosis is to shift the resonant frequency of the middle ear to higher values as a result of increased stiffness of the middle ear system, it was hypothesized that SI measured at higher probe-tone frequencies may provide a better distinction between healthy and otosclerotic ears. As expected, the results of this study indicate that SI measured at higher probe-tone frequencies is superior to a standard low probe tone in the detection of otosclerotic ears. Through systematic and objective comparisons of relevant probetone frequencies using both group statistics and test performance analysis, the present study suggests 630 Hz as an optimum probe-tone frequency for measuring SI with respect to distinguishing healthy ears from otosclerotic ears.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of AudiologySame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207