Round window electrode insertion potentiates retention in the scala tympani
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONCLUSIONS: The round window membrane (RWM)-intentioned approach is superior to the traditional bony cochleostomy (BC) approach in obtaining electrode placement within the scala tympani (ST). OBJECTIVE: Cochlear implant outcome is influenced by several factors, including optimal placement and retention of the electrode array within the ST. The present study aimed to assess whether the RWM route is superior to a traditional BC for placement and retention of the electrode array in the ST. METHODS: This was a prospective consecutive non-randomized comparison study. All patients were implanted with the Advanced Bionics 1J electrode array. The RWM approach (n = 32) was compared with a traditional BC group (n = 33). The outcome measure was the electrode position as judged within the scalar chambers at four points along the basal turn using postoperative computed tomography (CT). RESULTS: When the mean position scores were compared, the RWM-intentioned group had significantly more electrodes directed towards the ST compartment than the BC group (p < 0.001). The RWM electrodes achieved 94% ST retention compared with 64% for the BC group (p < 0.05). All electrodes stayed in the ST in the RWM group, whereas in the BC group 9% crossed from the ST to the scala vestibuli.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".