MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1527127150 · doi:10.1002/lary.24648

Quality of life in cochlear implantees: Comparing utility values obtained through the Medical Outcome Study Short‐Form Survey‐6D and the Health Utility Index Mark 3

2014· article· en· W1527127150 on OpenAlexaff
Christoph Arnoldner, Vincent Lin, Richard Bresler, Alexandra Kaider, Jafri Kuthubutheen, David Shipp, Joseph M. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Laryngoscope · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutcome (game theory)Index (typography)Quality of life (healthcare)PsychologyAudiologyMedicineGerontologyNursingComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the changes in health-related quality of life in unilateral adult cochlear implant patients using the Medical Outcome Study Short-Form Survey-36 (SF-36) and the Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI-3). To do so, a health utility index was obtained by converting the SF-36 to the Medical Outcome Study Short-Form Survey-6D (SF-6D) to permit comparison with HUI-3 scores in the context of health preference as measured by quality-adjusted life years. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Eighty-one postlingually deaf adult patients undergoing cochlear implantation completed the SF-36 and HUI-3 preoperatively and at a median of 1.4 years (range, 11 months-5 years) after cochlear implantation. RESULTS: The SF-36 improvement was statistically significant in two domains. The SF-36 data were converted to SF-6D. Preoperatively, the mean SF-6D utility score was 0.575 ± 0.056. One year postoperatively this score increased to 0.590 ± 0.064. The improvement of 0.015 ± 0.082 was not statistically significant (P = .1118). Of the HUI-3 attributes, two showed improvement between preoperative and postoperative evaluations. The overall HUI-3 score increased from 0.464 ± 0.207 preoperatively to 0.611 ± 0.190 postoperatively. The gain of 0.146 ± 0.19 was statistically significant (P < .0001). The intraclass correlation coefficient between the SF-6D and HUI-3 showed a very small correlation, both pre- and postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Against the backdrop of diminishing resources for healthcare, cost-effective analysis is fast becoming an important tool. There remains a strong need for health-related quality-of-life instruments that can truly reflect the benefit of cochlear implantation, in which utility estimates are fundamentally important. The SF-36 scores, when converted to SF-6D, do not correlate well with HUI-3 scores in a cohort of adult cochlear implant recipients. The HUI-3 remains the most appropriate tool for this patient group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LaryngoscopeSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207