The British Columbia's Children's Hospital Tone-Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response Protocol: How Long Do Infants Sleep and How Much Information Can Be Obtained in One Appointment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief There are few published reports providing quantitative information of clinical feasibility for tone-evoked auditory brainstem response (ABR) protocols. In this study, the authors reviewed charts of 188 ABR assessments during a 20-mo period: 116 sedated (median age, 23 mos) and 72 nonsedated (median age, 4 mos). Fifty-one percent of infants had normal thresholds. The average amount of sleep time was 58 mins for sedated assessments, during which an average of 7.6 measures were obtained; nonsedated assessments averaged 49 mins with 6.2 measures obtained. Thus, a substantial amount of both test time and information about hearing can be obtained within one ABR appointment. In this study, we reviewed charts of 188 tone-evoked ABR assessments over a 20-month period: 116 sedated (median age 23 months) and 72 non-sedated (median age 4 months). Fifty-one percent of infants had normal thresholds. The average amount of sleep time was 58 minutes for sedated assessments, during which an average of 7.6 measures were obtained; non-sedated assessments averaged 49 minutes with 6.2 measures obtained. Thus, a substantial amount of both test time and information about hearing can be obtained within one ABR appointment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".