Bone-Anchored Hearing Aids in Infants and Children Younger Than 5 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHAs) are currently indicated for rehabilitation in children older than 5 years with bilateral maximal conductive hearing loss, our objective was to capitalize on potentially important stages of auditory and speech-language development by providing BAHAs to children younger than 5 years. DESIGN: A retrospective review of surgical data of children receiving BAHA implants over a 10-year period. SETTING: The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario. PATIENTS: Twenty children 5 years or younger (mean +/- SD age, 3.21 +/- 1.65 years) served as the study group, while 20 older children (mean +/- SD age, 7.63 +/- 1.55 years) served as the comparison group. INTERVENTIONS: All patients received BAHA implants. Children with cortical bone thickness less than 2.5 mm underwent a 2-stage procedure; children with cortical bone thickness greater than 4 mm underwent a single-stage procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Traumatic and skin revision complication rates and implantation interstage intervals were compared between groups. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD interstage interval was 7.72 +/- 3.81 months for the younger children, which was significantly longer than for the older children (4.41 +/- 2.51 months) (P<.003). Two traumatic fixture losses occurred in the younger children, while 4 occurred in the older children. Skin site revision was required in 3 younger children. All children are currently wearing their BAHAs. CONCLUSION: Two-stage BAHA implantation with a prolonged interval between stages yields surgical success in younger children comparable to that routinely observed in older children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".