Bilateral paediatric cochlear implants: A critical review
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 recent trend has been the implantation of bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) for children with severe to profound hearing loss. A review of available research on bilateral CIs was conducted to determine the support for this trend. A replicable review was undertaken to evaluate published research studies that examined the effectiveness of bilateral paediatric cochlear implantation. Databases, reference lists, and journals were searched for relevant documents using a pre-determined search protocol. Twenty-nine articles met the review's inclusion criteria and were retrieved and reviewed. This review adds to the previously published reviews on the topic by identifying additional paediatric studies. Sound localization and speech recognition in noise appear to be improved with bilateral compared to unilateral cochlear implants. Similarly, evoked potential measures suggest improved morphology when the second CI is implanted early. Well-designed and controlled studies that explore a variety of outcomes including cost-effectiveness, quality of life, speech, language, and psycho-educational measures should be further explored in order to provide additional support for parents and clinicians confronted with the bilateral cochlear implant decision.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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