Deafness and Sickle Cell Disease: Three Case Reports and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The otological complications of sickle cell disease (SCD) in general and the audiological complications in particular are not well documented and studied. Because the general management of patients with SCD has improved after the advent of newborn screening, antibiotic prophylaxis, safer blood transfusion and hydroxyurea therapy, patients with SCD are doing better in general and living longer than before. With longer longevity, the incidence of new complications of SCD became apparent and previously milder complications became more severe and more common. The dental and otological complications of SCD are examples of these changes that have become more common than before. Unfortunately with this increase, there are no guidelines or recommendations based on evidence on how to manage and treat these complications. The aim of this study was to describe three patients with SCD and deafness due to three different causes that were not adequately treated and to review the literature of deafness in SCD. We hope this may initiate more controlled trials on the incidence, prevalence and management of these complications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".