Towards a consensus on a hearing preservation classification system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONCLUSION: The comprehensive Hearing Preservation classification system presented in this paper is suitable for use for all cochlear implant users with measurable pre-operative residual hearing. If adopted as a universal reporting standard, as it was designed to be, it should prove highly beneficial by enabling future studies to quickly and easily compare the results of previous studies and meta-analyze their data. OBJECTIVES: To develop a comprehensive Hearing Preservation classification system suitable for use for all cochlear implant users with measurable pre-operative residual hearing. METHODS: The HEARRING group discussed and reviewed a number of different propositions of a HP classification systems and reviewed critical appraisals to develop a qualitative system in accordance with the prerequisites. RESULTS: The Hearing Preservation Classification System proposed herein fulfills the following necessary criteria: 1) classification is independent from users' initial hearing, 2) it is appropriate for all cochlear implant users with measurable pre-operative residual hearing, 3) it covers the whole range of pure tone average from 0 to 120 dB; 4) it is easy to use and easy to understand.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.280 | 0.307 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".