OCTO “Outcomes of Cochlear Implant for the Octogenarians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the impact on quality of life, hearing performance, and surgical complications among patients aged 80 years and older, at the time of cochlear implantation. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review and quality of life assessment. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: All elderly cochlear implant recipients aged 80 years and older (30 patients), who underwent implantation through the Quebec Cochlear Implant Program. INTERVENTION(S): Postoperative validated quality-of-life questionnaire with clinical and audiologic data extraction using the medical record. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The validated "Glasgow Benefit Inventory" questionnaire was used to quantify the impact on quality of life. Audiologic preoperative and postoperative evaluation consisted of speech recognition scores (MAT and HINT scores). Complications were retrospectively collected after each cochlear implantation. RESULTS: A majority of them reported using their cochlear implant almost always with great quality-of-life benefits (increase +37.5 on the GBI). They also experienced a significant improvement in audiologic performance as seen with speech recognition scores (p < 0.0001). There were very few surgical complications, but 4 patients had delayed complications (otalgia, tinnitus, and hyperacusis). CONCLUSION: This is the most extensive study on the impact of quality of life for patients aged 80 years and older who received a cochlear implant. The audiologic benefit in this population is undeniable, and the quality-of-life improvement is comparable to studies made on much younger patients. It is also well-tolerated surgery with relatively low risk but with possible delayed complications. Given all these results, there should be no concerns regarding implantation in well-selected octogenarians.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".