Pediatric cochlear implantation: How much hearing is too much?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Audiologic candidacy criteria for determining cochlear implantation candidacy in children are evolving. The objective of the study was to examine clinical practice related to the cochlear implantation of children who typically do not meet audiologic criteria for this technology. Practitioners' perspectives on the process and the factors influencing candidacy decisions were explored through focus group interviews with hospital and school-based practitioners. The interviews were analysed using qualitative techniques to identify key issues. The findings from the interviews informed a questionnaire which was sent to all cochlear implant centers in Canada to further examine clinician views and experiences with this special population. Responses were collected from 11 of the 12 centers and indicated that children with hearing outside typical criteria were receiving implants. The definition of 'borderline' varied across the programs from approximately 70 dB HL to less than 90 dB HL. All centers emphasized the importance of considering factors beyond the child's audiometric thresholds in candidacy decision-making.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it