Possible clinical implications of the structural variations between the tympanic membrane quadrants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Retraction pockets and marginal perforations of the pars tensa of the tympanic membrane (TM) are most commonly found at superior posterior quadrant (SPQ). The patulous Eustachian tube tends to manifest in the same quadrant. Variation in the structure of the TM may explain these observations. Material and Methods: A line defined by the manubrium was used to divide the pars tensa into anterior and posterior portions. A transverse line centered on the umbo divides the pars tensa into superior and inferior parts, resulting in four quadrants. Surface areas of each of the TM quadrants were measured in a sample of 23 human adult formalin-fixed temporal bones. The TMs were completely excised, faced medially, and placed against graph paper to maintain scale measurements, photoed, and measured.TM thickness was measured on a different set of 20 human temporal bones (TB) preparations with normal external and middle ears. Four random loci were chosen from each pars tensa's TM quadrant. The thickness was measured using high-magnification power microscopy. Results: The SPQ was the largest and thinnest of the four quadrants. It occupies 31% of the pars tensa area. It is 69 μm as compared to approximately 85 μm in the other quadrants. The radial lines between the umbo and the annulus are in descending order from superior posterior toward the anterior-superior radials. Conclusion: The SPQ has the largest vibratory area and is the thinnest of the four TM quadrants. Variation in the thickness of the middle, fibrous layer accounts for the variation in the thickness of the TM. These findings may explain the tendency of pathologies related to Eustachian tube dysfunction to preferentially manifest in or originate from the SPQ.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".