Venous balloon test occlusion for pulsatile tinnitus assessment: A clinical feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundPulsatile tinnitus (PT) can have huge impact on the patients' quality of life and can be associated with curable vascular anomalies. In the present study, we aim firstly to describe our protocol for venous BTO and secondly to report possible predictors for a positive BTO test.MethodsAll consecutive PT patients undergoing BTO for the purpose of determining eligibility for venous neuro-intervention were included. We recommend BTO for patients when there is uncertainty in the association of the venous pathology identified on non-invasive cross-sectional imaging (CTV or MRV) and the patient's symptoms.ResultsBetween May 2016 and October 2022, we recorded 29 venous balloon test occlusions fulfilling our inclusions criteria. Over the 29 procedures scheduled, 8 finally did not lead to a successful balloon test occlusion. The main reason was that the patient did not hear the PT on the day the angiogram was performed. Two patients could not have the BTO due to difficulties in venous navigation. After BTO, only four patients of our cohort were scheduled for an endovascular treatment.ConclusionWe describe a technique and present a single cohort of venous BTO in severe PT patients with unclear anatomical cause. This angiographic test was useful to exclude patients from endovascular surgery and discuss the most probable cause of the PT. Complexity of vascular PT should support a patient-based approach when discussing interventional treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".