MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994999000 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e328331558a

Auditory development in the absence of hearing in infancy

2010· article· en· W1994999000 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen A. Gordon, Jerome Valero, Stephanie Jewell, Julia Ahn, Blake C. Papsin

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBrainstemAudiologyPsychologyCochlear nucleusLatency (audio)StimulationAuditory pathwaysCochlear implantCochlear implantationAuditory brainstem responseHearing lossMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The auditory brainstem pathways require stimulation to mature, but do they develop in the absence of auditory input? To answer this, peaks of the electrically evoked auditory nerve (wave eN1) and brainstem response (eII, eIII, and eV) were measured in 117 children with early-onset deafness who had received cochlear implants. Data were collected at cochlear implant activation. In the absence of significant input, the interpeak latency eN1-eIII decreased over the first year of life but remained constant thereafter. Chronic cochlear implant stimulation was required to promote significant reduction in eIII-eV interpeak latency. Thus, activity-independent changes occurring in infancy are concentrated in the caudal auditory brainstem and likely involve the auditory nerve. Changes requiring input are most prevalent in rostral brainstem.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207