Objective Findings with Malpositioning of a Nucleus 24RE(CA) Cochlear Implant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proper intracochlear placement of cochlear implant electrode arrays is believed to be important for optimum speech perception results. However, objective tests of cochlear implant function typically provide little or no information about the intracochlear placement of the array. We report the results for a variety of objective tests, including averaged electrode voltage (AEV) measurements, in a patient where the electrode array had folded up on itself during insertion. PURPOSE: To determine whether any of the objective measures provided evidence of incorrect electrode placement. RESEARCH DESIGN: Objective test data are reported for a patient with an incorrectly positioned electrode array, prior to and following reimplantation, and compared to data obtained in 42 patients with normal insertions. STUDY SAMPLE: One patient with an incorrectly placed electrode array, prior to and following reimplantation, and a sample of 42 implant recipients with correct insertions. INTERVENTION: The patient with the malpositioned electrode array was explanted and reimplanted. The results for the first and the second implant, with regards to objective test results, are compared. The results are also compared to the data obtained on 42 implant recipients with normal insertions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The objective test data (primarily AEV data) are compared with AEV results obtained in 42 patients with normal electrode insertions. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Although the electrode array had folded up on itself during insertion, intraoperative electrode impedances and VIII nerve responses, as well as postoperative electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses, were within normal limits. However, averaged electrode voltages, obtained with the Nucleus Crystal Integrity Test system, were abnormal and consistent with a low-impedance pathway between the apical and middle portions of the electrode array.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".