Comparison of outcomes in children with hearing aids and cochlear implants
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
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to document the performance of a group of children with moderately severe to severe hearing loss who use hearing aids on a range of speech recognition, speech-language, and literacy measures and to compare these results to children with severe to profound hearing loss, who have learned language through cochlear implants. METHODS: This study involved 41 children with bilateral sensorineural hearing impairment, aged 6-18 years. Twenty children had moderately severe/severe hearing loss and used hearing aids, and 21 had severe to profound hearing loss and used cochlear implants. Communication and academic skills were assessed using speech recognition tests and standardized measures of speech production, language, phonology, and literacy. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ in their open-set speech recognition abilities or speech production skills. However, children with hearing aids obtained higher scores than their peers with cochlear implants in the domains of receptive vocabulary, language, phonological memory, and reading comprehension. The findings also indicate that children with moderately severe or severe hearing loss can develop spoken language skills that are within the range expected for normal hearing children. CONCLUSIONS: School-aged children with moderately severe and severe hearing loss performed better in several domains than their peers with profound hearing loss who received cochlear implants between age 2 and 5 years. Further research is required to evaluate the benefits of hearing aids and cochlear implants in children with hearing loss who are diagnosed and receive intervention within the first year of life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it