Referral Rates and Costs of Our Modified Two-Step Newborn Hearing Screening Program at a Japanese Perinatal Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We examined the referral rates and costs of our modified two-step newborn hearing screening program for “low-risk” infants at our hospital from 2004 to 2013. Methods: In our hospital, low-risk newborns were screened with an otoacoustic emissions (OAE) sensor on days 2 - 4 postpartum. Infants who failed the OAE were examined with OAE again 1 - 5 days after the first screening. Infants who failed the second OAE were screened with the third OAE at 1 month after delivery. Infants who failed the third OAE were examined with auditory brainstem response at 1 - 2 weeks after the third OAE. Results: Twenty-eight of 19,199 cases (0.15%) had unilateral or bilateral REFER, and 19 cases (0.10%) were diagnosed as hearing loss (three cases were missing). Thus, the false positive rate in our programs was 28%. During the study period, the total cost for each program was c alculated to be JP¥ 526. Conclusions: O ur modified two-step newborn hearing screening program for “low-risk” infants seemed to be beneficial concerning their referral rates and costs. Int J Clin Pediatr. 2014;3(2):35-39 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/ijcp155w Normal 0 0 2 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".