MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Incidence and pattern of hearing impairment in children with ≤ 800 g birthweight in British Columbia, Canada

2011· article· en· W2109252617 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anne Synnes, Shelagh Anson, Julia Baum, Laurie Usher

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Paediatrica · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsChild and Family Research InstituteChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Epoch (astronomy)PediatricsCohortCerebral palsyCohort studyCognitive impairmentCognitionInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: This study aimed to evaluate changes over time in the characteristics of permanent hearing impairment (HI) in extremely low-birthweight (ELBW ≤800 g) children. METHODS: Data from sequential visits up to 5 years of age assessing hearing and other neurodevelopmental outcomes were extracted from a cohort of ELBW subjects born between 1983 and 2006 at a single Canadian site. Trends in HI incidence, severity and association with other impairments were analysed in three 8-year epochs. RESULTS: Fifty of 586 ELBW children had a HI. HI rates increased from 5% in epoch 1 to 7% in epoch 2-13% in epoch 3 (p = 0.01). Mild HI decreased from 78% in epoch 1 to 35% in epoch 3 (p = 0.03). Median age at diagnosis decreased from 13 to 8 months. Comorbidities were more common in HI children than non-HI children: cerebral palsy (40% vs 14%, p < 0.0001)), cognitive (38% vs 12%, p < 0.0001) and visual impairments (16% vs 6%, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: The incidence and severity of hearing impairment in a cohort of extremely low-birthweight children increased significantly from 5% to 13% (p = 0.01) over a 24-year period. Comorbidities were common. Potentially modifiable causes are explored.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa PaediatricaSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207