Image-Based Artificial Intelligence Technology for Diagnosing Middle Ear Diseases: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Otolaryngological diagnoses, such as otitis media, are traditionally performed using endoscopy, wherein diagnostic accuracy can be subjective and vary among clinicians. The integration of objective tools, like artificial intelligence (AI), could potentially improve the diagnostic process by minimizing the influence of subjective biases and variability. We systematically reviewed the AI techniques using medical imaging in otolaryngology. Relevant studies related to AI-assisted otitis media diagnosis were extracted from five databases: Google Scholar, PubMed, Medline, Embase, and IEEE Xplore, without date restrictions. Publications that did not relate to AI and otitis media diagnosis or did not utilize medical imaging were excluded. Of the 32identified studies, 26 used tympanic membrane images for classification, achieving an average diagnosis accuracy of 86% (range: 48.7-99.16%). Another three studies employed both segmentation and classification techniques, reporting an average diagnosis accuracy of 90.8% (range: 88.06-93.9%). These findings suggest that AI technologies hold promise for improving otitis media diagnosis, offering benefits for telemedicine and primary care settings due to their high diagnostic accuracy. However, to ensure patient safety and optimal outcomes, further improvements in diagnostic performance are necessary.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".