Impact of Cochlear Implants on the Functional Health Status of Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of cochlear implantation on quality of life changes in older adults aged 50 years and above. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study by questionnaire and chart review. METHODS: Forty-seven patients aged 50 to 80 years (mean age, 63.4 y [SD = 8.6 y]), who have multiple-channel cochlear implants received at The Listening Center at Johns Hopkins Hospital, completed the Ontario Health Utilities Index Mark 3 survey and a questionnaire on quality of life changes. Health utility scores before and after cochlear implantation were measured, and audiologic data before implantation and at 6 months and 1 year after implantation were analyzed. RESULTS: Cochlear implantation in older adults is associated with a mean gain in health utility(P <.0001) of 0.24 (SD = 0.33), which corresponds to a favorable cost-utility of $9530 per quality-adjusted life-year. Improvements in hearing and emotional health attributes were primarily responsible for this increase in health-related quality of life measure. There was a significant increase in speech perception scores at 6 months after surgery (P <.0001 for both CID sentence and monosyllabic word tests) and a strong correlation between the magnitude of health utility gains and the postoperative increase in speech perception scores (r = 0.45, P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cochlear implants have a significant impact on the quality of life of older deaf patients, and are a cost-effective intervention in this population. Improvements in speech perception are predictive of gains in health-related quality of life and associated emotional benefits after cochlear implantation.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".