Ossified versus Patent Cochlea: Objective and Subjective Results of Partial Drill-out of the Basal Turn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the objective benefits and subjective impact of surgery on the quality of life (QOL) of implanted patients with a totally ossified or patent cochlea. DESIGN: Prospective, observational, pre- versus postsurgery study. SETTING: Academic otolaryngology department. PATIENTS: Five consecutive patients (3 women and 2 men with a mean age of 43.6 years; range 15-62 years) with a totally ossified cochlea treated with Cohen's partial drill-out technique were selected from a series of 78 patients who underwent cochlear implantation. Five implanted patients (three women and two men with a mean age of 43.8; range 26-60 years) with a patent cochlea were used as a control group. The mean age, gender distribution, and causes of deafness were the same in the two groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recognition test of open and closed sets of two-syllable words; sentence test; subjective QOL test for auditory, social, and emotional impairment. RESULTS: The patients with an ossified cochlea showed a gradual improvement in all objective speech modalities during the 24-month follow-up period, whereas those with a patent cochlea reached their best score at the first follow-up evaluation. At the subjective QOL test, auditory impairment in the patients with an ossified cochlea was 91% before and 34% after surgery; the social impairment scores at the same times were, respectively, 52% and 18%. The presurgery emotional impairment score of 56% decreased over the following months, but this trend was more striking in the earlier postoperative period. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of cochlear implants should be considered not only in terms of objective evaluation by means of traditional clinical tests but also in terms of the patients' subjective evaluation of auditory and communicative performances. Together with the improvement in auditory and communicative skills, a better QOL (psychological and social comfort) is undoubtedly one of the more appreciated aspects for implanted patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".