MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071630810 · doi:10.1080/010503901750166727

The effects of age of cochlear implantation on speech perception outcomes in prelingually deaf children

2001· article· en· W2071630810 on OpenAlexaff
Robert V. Harrison, Jaswinder Panesar, Hamdy El‐Hakim, Mohamed Abdolell, Richard J. Mount, Blake C. Papsin

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Audiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCochlear implantationAudiologyPerceptionSpeech perceptionCochlear implantDeviance (statistics)Drop outMedicinePsychologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have made a retrospective analysis on 70 prelingually deaf children (78% congenital; age range 2-15 years) followed for up to 5 years post-implant during which both closed set speech perception tests (TAC, WIPI) and open set tasks (PBK, GASP) were administered. We used a binary partitioning algorithm to optimally divide our dataset on the basis of age at implantation This technique achieves an optimal split when the heterogeneity of the data is most reduced (maximal drop in deviance). For the closed set speech perception tests (TAC and WIPI) partitioning best divided-out data at age 4.4 years. For the open set tests optimal division was at a higher age of implantation (GASP word, 5.6 years; PBK word, 8.4 years). Using these partitioning values, we have found statistically significant differences between rate of improvement of scores in the younger implanted children compared with those implanted later.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations25
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian AudiologySame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207