AB211. SOH22ABS077. Intratympanic dexamethasone injection for tinnitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Tinnitus affects over 60% of people at some stage of their lives and are often short-lived. A small cohort of patients experience intractable debilitating tinnitus, unrelated to hearing loss or vertigo syndromes. Management strategies include tinnitus masking techniques, cognitive behavioural therapy, and more recently, neuromodulation. Intratympanic dexamethasone injection for intractable tinnitus has been described although the evidence for such intervention is not strong. Methods: A retrospective review of patients undergoing intratympanic dexamethasone injections over a 6-year period was carried out. Indications for injections included sudden sensorineural hearing loss, vertigo control in Meniere’s Disease, and isolated tinnitus. A literature review was carried out to ascertain the efficacy of steroid injections for tinnitus alone. Results: Seventy injections were carried out in total. Seventy percent were for vertigo control in Meniere’s Disease, 23% for sudden sensorineural hearing loss, and 7% for isolated tinnitus. There was no improvement in symptom control for those carried out for tinnitus alone. Conclusions: Despite literature evidence of tinnitus management with intratympanic dexamethasone injections, and anecdotal success in improvement in symptoms with such a technique in an international tertiary referral centre in Toronto, Canada, no improvement was noted in our study. It remains doubtful as to whether such a management strategy should be offered to patients with intractable tinnitus.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".