ArticleThe Laryngoscope2024
A Proof-of-Concept Computer Vision Approach for Measurement of Tympanic Membrane Perforations.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decoding the OR Black Box and Similar Technologies and Considerations in Otolaryngologic Surgery.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Review
- Accurate 3D reconstruction of eardrum perforations using Structure from Motion photogrammetry.International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
objectiveSize, an important characteristic of a tympanic membrane perforation (TMP), is commonly assessed with gross estimation via visual inspection, a practice which is prone to inaccuracy. Herein, we demonstrate feasibility of a proof-of-concept computer vision model for estimating TMP size in a small set of perforations.
methodsAn open-source deep learning architecture was used to train a model to segment and calculate the area of a perforation and the visualized tympanic membrane (TM) in a set of endoscopic images of mostly anterior and relatively small TMPs. The model then computed relative TMP size by calculating the ratio of perforation area to TM area. Model performance on the test dataset was compared to ground-truth manual annotations. In a validation survey, otolaryngologists were tasked with estimating the size of TMPs from the test dataset. The primary outcome was the average absolute error of model size predictions and clinician estimates compared to sizes determined by ground-truth manual annotations.
resultsThe model's average absolute error for size predictions was a 0.8% overestimation for all test perforations. Conversely, among the 38 survey respondents, the average clinician error was a 11.0% overestimation (95% CI, 5.2-16.7%, p = 0.003).
conclusionsIn a small sample of TMPs, we demonstrated a computer vision approach for estimating TMP size is feasible. Further validation studies must be done with significantly larger and more heterogenous datasets. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A Laryngoscope, 134:2906-2911, 2024.
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.