Ten-Year Experience with Percutaneous Bone-Anchored Hearing Aids: A 3- to 10-Year Follow-up—Markham Stouffville Hospital, 1990 to 2000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with bilateral conductive hearing losses continue to be a source of frustration for both otologists and audiologists. Efforts to rehabilitate their hearing have included medical and surgical treatment, as well as the use of conventional hearing aids and, less frequently, conventional bone-conduction hearing aids. In the late 1980s, a percutaneous bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) developed by Dr. A. Tjellström, as an offshoot of Dr. P. I. Brånemark's work on osseointegration of titanium and bone, became commercially available. The BAHA has become a high-performing, comfortable, and aesthetically pleasing sound processor. The results of a 10-year BAHA program based at Markham Stouffville Hospital are summarized. In particular, a retrospective review of the 76 patients implanted between 1990 and 1997 is reported (i.e., a 3- to 10-year follow-up). Recent innovations to the design of the BAHA will be described that will further improve the quality of life for these patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".