Predictive Factors of Cochlear Implant Outcomes in the Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze predictive factors of cochlear implant outcomes and postoperative complications in the elderly. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal study performed in 10 tertiary referral centers. METHODS: Ninety-four patients aged 65-85 years with a profound, postlingual hearing loss were evaluated before implantation, at time of activation, and 6 and 12 months after cochlear implantation. Speech perception and lipreading were measured using disyllabic word recognition in quiet and noise, and lipreading using disyllabic words and sentences. The influence of preoperative factors on speech perception in quiet and noise at 12 months was tested in a multivariate analysis. Complications, presence of tinnitus and of vestibular symptoms were collected at each evaluation. RESULTS: The effect of age was observed only in difficult noisy conditions at SNR 0 dB. Lipreading ability for words and sentences was negatively correlated with speech perception in quiet and noise. Better speech perception scores were observed in patients with shorter duration of hearing deprivation, persistence of residual hearing for the low frequencies, the use of a hearing aid before implantation, the absence of cardiovascular risk factors, and in those with implantation in the right ear. General and surgical complications were very rare, and the percentage of vestibular symptoms remained stable over time. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that cochlear implantation in the elderly is a well-tolerated procedure and an effective method to improve communication ability. Advanced age has a low effect on cochlear implant outcome. Analyses of predictive factors in this population provide a convincing argument to recommend treatment with cochlear implantation as early as possible in elderly patients with confirmed diagnosis of a severe-to-profound hearing loss and with only limited benefit from hearing aid use in one ear.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".