ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating Partial Middle Ear Filling for the Diagnosis of Cholesteatoma Using Machine Learning: A Radiological Approach.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis of Cholesteatoma: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence.Cureus · 2025Review
- A novel deep learning approach for predicting stone-free rates post-ESWL on uncontrasted CT.PeerJ. Computer science · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of middle ear partial filling on temporal bone computed tomography (CT) scan for middle ear cholesteatoma identification using supervised machine learning models.
methodsWe conducted an observational case-control study that retrospectively analyzed temporal bone CT scans from 212 patients from a single tertiary healthcare institution using supervised machine learning models, including k-Nearest Neighbors (kNN), Neural Networks, Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Random Forest. The study assessed the diagnostic value of partial middle ear filling for cholesteatoma. Limitations such as dataset imbalance and data complexity were addressed. Results. In internal validation, kNN and Neural Networks achieved the highest performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]: 1.000, classification accuracy [CA]: 99.6-99.7%, F1: 0.996-0.997), followed by Logistic Regression (AUC: 0.998, CA: 98.3%, F1: 0.983) and SVM (AUC: 0.997, CA: 97.5%, F1: 0.975). Random Forest performed the weakest (AUC: 0.980, CA: 92.0%, F1: 0.919). External validation (125 cases) revealed Neural Networks' superior generalizability (four errors), outperforming Logistic Regression (five), SVM (seven), Random Forest (28), and kNN (45). kNN demonstrated notably lower generalizability, suggesting limited robustness for unseen data. Discussion. The study highlights the effectiveness of machine learning in diagnosing cholesteatoma. Addressing data imbalance and variability in CT scans was crucial for model performance. Further research is needed to refine these models and explore their integration into clinical practice.
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.