ArticleScientific reports2023
Enhancing cochlear duct length estimation by incorporating second-turn parameters.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of S-Value in relation to cochlear anatomy in pediatric cochlear implant users.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Estimation of Angular Insertion Depth of a Cochlear Implant Electrode Array: Three-Dimensional Reconstruction Versus Spiral Formulae.Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology · 2025Article
- Robotic Versus Manual Electrode Insertion in Cochlear Implant Surgery: An Experimental Study.Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology · 2025Article
- Cochlear size variation among the Argentinian population.Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Estimating insertion depth, cochlear duct length (CDL), and other inner ear parameters is vital to optimizing cochlear implantation outcomes. Most current formulas use only the basal turn dimensions for CDL prediction. In this study, we investigated the importance of the second turn parameters in estimating CDL. Two experienced neuro-otologists blindly used segmentation software to measure (in mm) cochlear parameters, including basal turn diameter (A), basal turn width (B), second-turn diameter (A2), second-turn width (B2), CDL, first-turn length, and second-turn length (STL). These readings were taken from 33 computed tomography (CT) images of temporal bones from anatomically normal ears. We constructed regression models using A, B, A2, and B2 values fitted to CDL, two-turn length, and five-fold cross-validation to ensure model validity. CDL, A value, and STL were longer in males than in females. The mean B2/A2 ratio was 0.91 ± 0.06. Adding A2 and B2 values improved CDL prediction accuracy to 86.11%. Therefore, we propose a new formula for more accurate CDL estimation using A, B, A2, and B2 values. In conclusion, the findings of this study revealed a notable improvement in the prediction of two-turn length (2TL), and CDL by clinically appreciable margins upon adding A2 and B2 values to the prediction formulas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.