MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990839171 · doi:10.2310/7070.2004.00071

Results of Pediatric Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid Implantation

2004· article· en· W1990839171 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Robert Seemann, Richard Liu, John Di Toppa

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHearing aidOsseointegrationPatient satisfactionAbutmentImplantDentistrySurgeryHearing lossBone conductionAudiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) system uses an osseointegrated titanium implant to propagate sound directly to the inner ear through the bones of the skull, bypassing the impedance of the skin and subcutaneous tissues. Children as young as 18 months have had hearing rehabilitated with this device. OBJECTIVES: The goals were to evaluate the efficacy of patient selection criteria, the safety and effectiveness of the implantation procedure, and the level of patient satisfaction after BAHA implantation in children. METHODS: The records of all pediatric patients implanted in Edmonton were retrospectively reviewed. Twenty patients, who received 25 implants, with postimplantation follow-up of 6 months or greater, were included. The average follow-up was 3 years, 7 months. RESULTS: Of 20 original implants, 3 were lost owing to trauma, whereas 2 failed to osseointegrate. All were successfully reimplanted. Complications related to the implants included three instances of skin necrosis around the abutment. All patients and caregivers reported greater than 95% improvement in patient-identified listening situations. Pure-tone averages improved from a mean of 49 dB for the better hearing ear preoperatively to 16 dB with the BAHA set at normal listening levels. CONCLUSIONS: The BAHA provides a safe and effective means of rehabilitation of conductive or mixed hearing loss in the pediatric population. Our patients report a high level of satisfaction and continued use of their devices.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.253 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations24
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207