Nucleus Freedom North American Clinical Trial
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
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate hearing outcomes and effects of stimulation rate on performance with the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant (Cochlear Americas, Denver, CO). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, controlled, prospective, single-blind clinical study using single-subject repeated measures (A-B-A-B) design at 14 academic centers in the United States and Canada and comparison with outcomes of a prior device by the same manufacturer. PATIENTS: Seventy-one severely/profoundly hearing impaired adults. RESULTS: Seventy-one adult recipients were randomly programmed in two different sets of rate: ACE or higher rate ACE RE. Mean scores for Consonant Nucleus Consonant words is 57%, Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) sentences in quiet 78%, and HINT sentences in noise 64%. Sixty-seven percent of subjects preferred slower rates of stimulation, and performance did not improve with higher rates of stimulation using this device. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects performed well, and there was no advantage to higher stimulation rates with this device. SIGNIFICANCE: Higher stimulation rates do not necessarily result in improved performance.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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