Does intratympanic gentamicin treatment for Meniere's disease cause complete vestibular ablation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine changes in vestibular function following intratympanic gentamicin (ITG) treatment for Meniere's disease and to correlate changes with the need for further treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case series. PATIENTS: One hundred and three patients with disabling unilateral Meniere's disease who had failed a minimum of 6 months medical treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Vestibular function was measured by electronystagmography (ENG) caloric testing before and serially following treatment. Caloric responses were classified as normal (excitability difference [ED] < 25%), bithermal response (ED > or = 25%), positive response to ice water only, and absent ice water response. RESULTS: Twenty-one percent of patients had a bithermal caloric response, 62% had an absent ice water response, and 17% had an ice water response only 1 month following treatment. Mean follow-up was 27.3 months (range = 1-106 months). Eighty-four patients had one treatment course only. Fourteen patients required a further course of treatment due to recurrence of vertigo; 38% of these had recovery of caloric function. Significantly more patients with normal caloric function prior to initial treatment required further treatment compared to those with initial reduced caloric function (p < .05). Patients rendered absent ice water responsive were significantly less likely to require further treatment than those with a persistent caloric response (p < .0001). CONCLUSION: An absent ice water response is highly predictive of adequate vertigo control. Regimens of ITG that aim to completely ablate vestibular function are recommended.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".