MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cochlear Implantation in Cochlear Otosclerosis

2005· article· en· W2080100598 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Laryngoscope · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOtosclerosisMedicineCochlear implantStapedectomyRadiological weaponImplantCochlear implantationSurgeryAudiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to correlate implant performance in cochlear otosclerosis to 1) matched control samples, 2) severity of otic capsule involvement, 3) prior ipsilateral surgery, and 4) programming issues. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case controlled study. METHODS: Study cohort comprised 30 individuals. Diagnosis was based on prior ear surgery (stapedectomy [n = 18] or fenestration [n = 2]) and/or pathognomonic radiological findings. High-resolution computed tomography images of the temporal bones were assessed by two radiologists and graded (range, 0-3) for the extent of otosclerosis. Operative records were reviewed. Performance, programming visits, and the number of electrode deactivations at 6 months and at 1 year after implantation were determined for the individuals with otosclerosis and compared with a group of matched control subjects. A within-group comparison correlating severity of otosclerosis to the above was carried out. RESULTS: Implant performance in individuals with cochlear otosclerosis was not significantly different from those without. Previous surgery on the side of implantation did not alter performance. Programming difficulty as reflected in the number of visits and electrode deactivation for sound quality reasons were comparable. Deactivation for facial nerve stimulation occurred exclusively in otosclerotics with the most severe radiological disease (grade 3) and was only with non-modiolar hugging electrodes (n = 5). There was no observed difference between the radiological extent of otosclerosis and implant performance. CONCLUSION: Individuals with severe otosclerosis considering cochlear implantation can be counseled to expect similar benefit to those without, regardless of whether prior surgery occurred on the side of implantation or of severity of otic capsule involvement. There is a significant risk of facial nerve stimulation in otosclerotics with grade 3 disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.253 · 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