A Comparison of the Audiometric Performance of Bone Anchored Hearing Aids and Air Conduction Hearing Aids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the function of bone anchored hearing aids (BAHA) with conventional air conduction hearing aids (ACHA) by means of objective audiometric tests focusing on temporal acuity and consonant discrimination in quiet and noise, as well as subjective quality-of-life questionnaires. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective. SUBJECTS: Patients using BAHAs because of profuse drainage from chronic suppurative otitis media, and a comparison group of healthy volunteers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Objective measures: sound field audiograms, duration discrimination, gap discrimination, and final and initial consonant discrimination in quiet and in noise. Subjective measures: Sanders' Profiles, MOS SF-36 questionnaire. RESULTS: Normal-hearing subjects always performed better than hearing-impaired patients in all tests. When the BAHA was compared with the ACHA, there were no significant differences in any of the measures. CONCLUSIONS: The BAHA and the ACHA provided similar audiometric functioning in audiometric tests. The BAHA, although using a nonphysiologic sound conduction route, did not sacrifice temporal processing ability or speech perception in noise, and should be considered for patients with profuse ear drainage.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".