Hearing Preservation With Full Insertion of the FLEXsoft Electrode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Hearing preservation (HP) in the context of cochlear implantation (CI) is indicative of an atraumatic insertion, which could potentially offer a clinical advantage to performance, whether such preservation was intended for the application of electoacoustic stimulation (EAS). Our goal was to determine the degree of HP after the implantation of a full-length electrode array (MedEl FLEXsoft). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, within-subject repeated measure design. METHODS: Adult patients with residual low-frequency hearing who received a 31.5-mm FlexSoft electrode array were included. Implantation using soft surgery techniques occurred at a single tertiary referral center between 2008 and 2011. Preoperative and postoperative audiometric data were compared. RESULTS: In 36 consecutive patients at 1 year postimplantation, 6 (21%) maintained complete HP (an increase of low-frequency pure-tone average (PTA) ≤10 dB from the preoperative value), and 19 (65%) maintained partial HP (an increase in low-frequency PTA ≤40 dB from the preoperative values) throughout the follow-up period (average, 368 d). Higher preoperative hearing threshold levels (HTLs) at 1,000 Hz were associated with HP. CONCLUSION: Low-frequency HP is possible in patients implanted with the full-length FlexSoft electrode. Longer follow-up is required to determine if results are maintained over time and if such preservation is in fact advantageous to clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".