Differences in perception of hearing handicap between cochlear implant users and their spouses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To examine the relationship between patient and proxy ratings of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with cochlear implants. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective survey. METHODS: Eighty-two adult cochlear implant recipients and their spouses/partners were asked to complete the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire (NCIQ) and the Hearing Participation Scale (HPS) that were mailed to them. RESULTS: For the NCIQ, there were 38 useable responses from recipients and 31 useable responses from the partners. There were 27 paired and useable questionnaires (i.e., from both the recipient and his/her partner). For the HPS, there were 42 useable responses from recipients and 36 useable responses from the partners. Of these, there were 35 paired questionnaires. There was good agreement between partners and patients with both the HPS (r = 0.62) and the NCIQ (r = 0.80). There was a significant statistical difference in the scoring of the Basic Sound Perception subscale between the two groups (P = .039), with spouses under-rating performance in this subscale. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with cochlear implants, patients' partners corroborate patients' self-reported HRQL. In cases in which patients have sensory impairment, there may be an additional role for proxy ratings of HRQL to give a more complete assessment of functional limitations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".