Results of stapedotomy in otosclerosis with severe and profound hearing loss.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the technical and functional results of 144 stapedotomies in patients with severe to profound hearing loss (SPHL) and to compare the success rate in this group with that of 1001 primary stapedotomies for mild to moderate hearing loss (MMHL). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Tertiary referral centre. METHODS: The charts of 1369 consecutive stapedotomy cases were reviewed. One hundred twenty-seven patients (144 stapedotomies) with SPHL were included. The outcomes were analyzed according to the 1995 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines and evaluated with the Amsterdam Hearing Evaluating Plots and the Glasgow Benefit Plot. RESULTS: The magnitude of hearing improvement was greater in patients with SPHL compared with patients with MMHL. The mean gain in air conduction in patients with SPHL was 32 (+/- 13) dB compared with 23 (+/- 11) dB in the series of 1001 primary stapedotomies for MMHL. Air-bone gap closure < or = 10 dB was achieved in 63% of cases and < or = 20 dB in 90% of patients with SPHL, compared with 82% and 97%, respectively, in patients with MMHL. CONCLUSIONS: SPHL in otosclerosis is not infrequent, comprising 13% of all primary stapedotomies in this series. The magnitude of hearing improvement poststapedotomy is greater in SPHL compared with MMHL. Symmetric hearing could be achieved in two-thirds of patients, and normal hearing can be achieved in selected cases.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".