Rehabilitation Factors Contributing to Implant Benefit in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was performed to investigate factors contributing to auditory, speech, language, and reading outcomes after 4 to 6 years of multichannel cochlear implant use in children with prelingual deafness. The analysis controlled for the effects of child, family, and implant characteristics so that the educational factors most conducive to maximum implant benefit could be identified. We tested 136 children from across the United States and Canada. All were 8 or 9 years of age, had an onset of deafness before 3 years of age, underwent implantation by 5 years of age, and resided in a monolingual English-speaking home environment. Characteristics of the child and the family (primarily nonverbal IQ) accounted for approximately 20% of the variance in outcome after implantation. An additional 24% was accounted for by implant characteristics and 12% by educational variables, particularly communication mode. Oral education appears to be an important educational choice for children who have undergone cochlear implantation before 5 years of age.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".