Bilateral simultaneous cochlear implantation in children: Our first 50 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To assess the safety and surgical technique of bilateral simultaneous cochlear implantation in children. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case series at a tertiary academic pediatric hospital. METHODS: Surgical times, complications, and patient outcomes are reported from the first 50 consecutive simultaneous cochlear implants performed at the Hospital for Sick Children between 2005 and 2008. These results were compared to the same measures in a group of sequentially implanted children consecutively implanted from 2001 to 2008. RESULTS: The group of children receiving simultaneous bilateral cochlear implants showed no difference in complications, length of hospital stay, or use of analgesia and antiemetics compared with children receiving single implants. The simultaneously implanted children had a reduced cumulative surgical time and hospital stay than is required for bilateral implantation performed sequentially. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral simultaneous cochlear implantation in this series of children was safe and required no significant increase in surgical time and hospital stay compared with unilateral procedures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".