Machine Learning and Cochlear Implantation—A Structured Review of Opportunities and Challenges
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The use of machine learning technology to automate intellectual processes and boost clinical process efficiency in medicine has exploded in the past 5 years. Machine learning excels in automating pattern recognition and in adapting learned representations to new settings. Moreover, machine learning techniques have the advantage of incorporating complexity and are free from many of the limitations of traditional deterministic approaches. Cochlear implants (CI) are a unique fit for machine learning techniques given the need for optimization of signal processing to fit complex environmental scenarios and individual patients' CI MAPping. However, there are many other opportunities where machine learning may assist in CI beyond signal processing. The objective of this review was to synthesize past applications of machine learning technologies for pediatric and adult CI and describe novel opportunities for research and development. DATA SOURCES: The PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge databases were mined using a directed search strategy to identify the nexus between CI and artificial intelligence/machine learning literature. STUDY SELECTION: Non-English language articles, articles without an available abstract or full-text, and nonrelevant articles were manually appraised and excluded. Included articles were evaluated for specific machine learning methodologies, content, and application success. DATA SYNTHESIS: The database search identified 298 articles. Two hundred fifty-nine articles (86.9%) were excluded based on the available abstract/full-text, language, and relevance. The remaining 39 articles were included in the review analysis. There was a marked increase in year-over-year publications from 2013 to 2018. Applications of machine learning technologies involved speech/signal processing optimization (17; 43.6% of articles), automated evoked potential measurement (6; 15.4%), postoperative performance/efficacy prediction (5; 12.8%), and surgical anatomy location prediction (3; 7.7%), and 2 (5.1%) in each of robotics, electrode placement performance, and biomaterials performance. CONCLUSION: The relationship between CI and artificial intelligence is strengthening with a recent increase in publications reporting successful applications. Considerable effort has been directed toward augmenting signal processing and automating postoperative MAPping using machine learning algorithms. Other promising applications include augmenting CI surgery mechanics and personalized medicine approaches for boosting CI patient performance. Future opportunities include addressing scalability and the research and clinical communities' acceptance of machine learning algorithms as effective techniques.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».