MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250993565 · doi:10.1258/002221505775010698

British Association for Paediatric Otorhinolaryngology (BAPO) abstracts from meeting on 8 October 2004

2005· article· en· W4250993565 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Laryngology & Otology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Regulatory Analysis
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOtorhinolaryngologyAssociation (psychology)Action (physics)MedicineMedical educationPsychologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

generating a '(2f1-f2) DPOAE' of -10dBSPL provided an isoDP measure of sensitivity.Aminoglycoside exposure in the CF group was obtained by inspection of clinical notes: median number of courses 7; median dosage 38 g; plasma levels within normal limits.Data were analysed by t-test. ResultsBoth groups were comparable by age and sex distribution.All mean values of -10dBSPL isoDP were elevated by 2-7 dB SPL in the CF group.This elevation reached significance (p < 0.001) at 4 kHz in the left ear. ConclusionsThese changes provide some evidence of an early effect of aminoglycoside on cochlear OHC function preceding changes in the PTA.This may provide a further objective measure for the clinician for monitoring the onset of any ototoxic effects.Interestingly in this group of paediatric CF patients, in spite of the repeated exposure, there was no evidence of frank aminoglycoside ototoxicity.This suggests that the risk of aminoglycoside ototoxicity in CF patients may be lower than that reported for non-CF patients.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2200.054

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Laryngology & OtologySame topicLegal and Regulatory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207