Cochlear Implants for Children with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 4-month-old baby girl whose parents and 6-year-old brother have severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss is referred for consideration for cochlear implantation. Each of the baby’s parents had previously received a cochlear implant in adulthood, and her older brother had received a cochlear implant at 18 months of age. The family uses oral communication in the English language. The baby had been diagnosed with sensorineural hearing loss during newborn screening, and she was fitted with bilat-eral hearing aids without clinically significant benefit. Bilateral profound sensori-neural hearing loss, with pure-tone thresholds of 100 dB or higher, is confirmed and a homozygous mutation in the connexin 26 gene (GJB2) is identified. It is recommended that the child undergo auditory-verbal therapy followed by implantation of a unilat-eral cochlear implant at 12 months of age. THE CL INIC A L PROBLEM Sensorineural hearing loss affects 1 to 3 of every 1000 children born in the United States and other developed countries1,2; the rate is probably higher in the developing world.3 In most cases, the hearing loss is nonsyndromic (i.e., it is not associated with
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it