MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034994567 · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31829e1ed9

Mild Bilateral and Unilateral Hearing Loss in Childhood

2013· article· en· W2034994567 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Elizabeth M. Fitzpatrick, JoAnne Whittingham, Andrée Durieux-Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHearing lossMedicineAudiologyUnilateral hearing lossPopulationCongenital hearing lossHearing aidPediatricsSensorineural hearing loss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objectives: There is some evidence that the presence of even mild degrees of hearing loss and unilateral loss in early childhood can negatively affect typical development. Consequently, the identification of all children with permanent hearing loss including those with milder degrees of hearing loss is currently targeted through some newborn hearing screening initiatives. The objectives of this study were to document the proportion of children identified with mild bilateral or unilateral hearing loss (MBUHL) before and after the implementation of a universal newborn hearing screening program (UNHS). A second objective was to examine the clinical characteristics and audiologic management of this population of children. Design: This population-based study involved an analysis of data on children with hearing loss; these data had been collected prospectively over a 20-year period from 1990 to 2010 in a publicly funded pediatric teaching hospital in Canada, which provided diagnostic audiology services for all children in the region. The proportion of all children with hearing loss identified with MBUHL before and after implementation of UNHS and their clinical profiles were documented. Data related to amplification use were also retrospectively extracted from detailed medical chart reviews to investigate clinical recommendations regarding amplification and subsequent use of hearing devices. Factors affecting amplification decisions and amplification use were examined. Results: A total of 381 of 823 children (46.3%) aged 0 to 18 years who were identified with permanent nonacquired hearing loss presented with MBUHL. The proportions identified were similar in the pre- and post-UNHS periods (p = 0.207). Before UNHS children were identified at a median age of 5.0 years (interquartile range: 3.6 to 7.0) compared with a median of 0.8 years, (interquartile range: 0.3 to 2.3) post-UNHS. Progression of hearing loss was documented for 22% of all children, and for the group identified since UNHS, 32.4% experienced deterioration in hearing thresholds. Although 87.2 % of children received recommendations for amplification, more than 50% experienced considerable delay from identification to amplification. Age at identification and severity of hearing loss in the better ear were associated with amplification decisions for bilateral but not unilateral loss. Conclusions: MBUHL constitutes almost half of childhood hearing loss. UNHS has lowered age of confirmation of MBUHL by 4 to 5 years. Delay to amplification suggests uncertainty of the benefit of intervening early for these losses. Further research is required to determine the effects of early-identified MBUHL on children’s development and to document the benefits of early amplification. This study examined prevalence and practices related to mild bilateral and unilateral hearing loss in children identified over a 20-year period from 1990 to 2010 before and after universal newborn hearing screening. Almost half of 831 children with hearing loss presented with a mild bilateral or unilateral impairment. Before universal newborn hearing screening, children were identified at a median age of 5 years but at age 9.5 months after screening, resulting in a new clinical population. Although amplification was recommended for 87% of children, more than half experienced delays between diagnosis and amplification, suggesting considerable clinical uncertainty about their potential hearing difficulties.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations108
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar and HearingSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207