Are Open-Fit Hearing Aids A Possible Alternative to Bone-Anchored Hearing Devices in Patients with Mild to Severe Hearing Loss? A Preliminary Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open-fit hearing aids (OFHAs) may be of benefit for some individuals with chronic outer and middle ear conditions for which boneanchored hearing devices (BAHDs) are normally recommended. The purpose of this study was to compare performance between OFHAs and BAHDs. A Starkey Destiny 800 OFHA was fit on eight adult BAHD users and speech perception measures in quiet and in background noise were compared under two different test conditions: i) BAHD only and ii) OFHA only. Equivalent outcome measure performance between these two conditions suggests that the OFHA was able to provide sufficient amplification for mild to moderate degrees of hearing loss (pure-tone averages (PTAs) less than 47 dB HL). The improved speech perception performances and increased loudness ratings observed for several of the participants with moderately-severe to severe degrees of hearing loss (PTAs of 47 dB HL or greater) in the BAHD only condition suggest that the OFHA did not provide sufficient amplification for these individuals. Therefore, OFHAs may be a successful alternative to the BAHD for individuals with no more than a moderate conductive hearing loss who are unable or unwilling to undergo implant surgery or unable to wear conventional hearing aids due to allergies, irritation, or chronic infection associated with the ear being blocked with a shell or earmold.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".