Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess current surgical techniques for scala tympani cochlear implantation among North American surgeons. MATERIAL: A survey was distributed to all cochlear implant surgeons participating in the 2006 William House Cochlear Implant Study Group in Toronto, Canada. Participants were asked to anonymously identify their routine surgical practices. Images of trans-facial recess approaches to the round window and cochlear promontory were used in a multiple-choice fashion to assess the surgeon's typical exposure and cochleostomy location. Returned questionnaires were electronically processed and evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-five (75%) of 73 returned surveys had adequate data validity and availability. Landmark identification and preferred cochleostomy locations varied greatly. About 20% of surgeons selected cochleostomy locations superior to the round window membrane. Cochleostomy size and location appeared to be influenced by surgical experience and whether or not the round window overhang was drilled off. CONCLUSION: This survey clearly documents marked variations in surgical techniques for scala tympani cochlear implantation. Future studies should more clearly define the surgical anatomy of this region for appropriate placement of a scala tympani cochleostomy. These findings may ultimately have an impact on hearing and neural preservation cochlear implant surgeries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".