MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307804569 · doi:10.7759/cureus.30985

The Correlation Between Otitis Media With Effusion and Adenoid Hypertrophy Among Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4307804569 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ghadi D Mashat, Hadrian Hoang-Vu Tran, Neway A Urgessa, Prabhitha Geethakumari, Prathima Kampa, Rakesh Parchuri, Renu Bhandari, Ali R Alnasser, Aqsa Akram, Saikat Kar, Fatema Osman, Pousette Hamid

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOtitisAdenoidRandomized controlled trialSystematic reviewTympanometryCochrane LibraryPediatricsMEDLINEAudiologyHearing lossPathologySurgeryAudiometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Otitis media with effusion (OME) affects approximately 80% of children due to the middle ear being flooded with fluids, though with no microbial infection manifestations. Multiple issues can drive recurring pediatric OME, such as environment-based issues, previous medical issues, inherited vulnerability from family, contact time at childcare institutes, passive smoking, and more than three siblings together with atopy or allergic rhinitis. If OME is not promptly addressed, this could eventually result in hearing impairment or loss, with consequent negative repercussions on the child's communicative and behavioral patterns. OME diagnosis within the clinic is possible, with hearing capacity being assessed pre- and post-therapy. Adenoid hypertrophy (AH) represents a typical causative factor for middle-ear conditions, stemming from mechanical or anatomical issues. Consequently, adenoid size is paramount when determining tympanometry types and ear fluids. This systematic review investigated PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct databases in order to retrieve knowledge related to this issue, adopting inclusion and exclusion criteria and maintaining review quality through the employment of the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), the Newcastle-Ottawa tool, and the Axis scale. This systematic review analyzed a previous review article, six observation-based investigations, and three cross-sectional investigations. Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were not found within previous literature, suggesting such scarcity in this research niche and thus warranting future RCT investigations based on this compelling research niche.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207