The Auditory Rehabilitation Outcomes Network: an international initiative to develop core sets of patient‐centred outcome measures to assess interventions for hearing loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical OtolaryngologyVolume 40, Issue 6 p. 512-515 Editorial Comment The Auditory Rehabilitation Outcomes Network: an international initiative to develop core sets of patient-centred outcome measures to assess interventions for hearing loss J.R. Tysome, J.R. Tysome Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UKSearch for more papers by this authorP. Hill-Feltham, P. Hill-Feltham Central Manchester University Hospitals, Manchester, UKSearch for more papers by this authorW.E. Hodgetts, W.E. Hodgetts University of Alberta and Institute for Reconstructive Sciences in Medicine, Edmonton, AB, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorB.J. McKinnon, B.J. McKinnon Shea Ear Clinic, Memphis, TN, USASearch for more papers by this authorP. Monksfield, P. Monksfield University Hospitals Birmingham, Birmingham, UKSearch for more papers by this authorR. Sockalingham, R. Sockalingham Oticon Medical, Somerset, NJ, USASearch for more papers by this authorM.L. Johansson, M.L. Johansson Oticon Medical, Askim, Sweden Department of Biomaterials, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, SwedenSearch for more papers by this authorA.F. Snik, A.F. Snik Radboud University, Nijmegen, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this author J.R. Tysome, J.R. Tysome Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UKSearch for more papers by this authorP. Hill-Feltham, P. Hill-Feltham Central Manchester University Hospitals, Manchester, UKSearch for more papers by this authorW.E. Hodgetts, W.E. Hodgetts University of Alberta and Institute for Reconstructive Sciences in Medicine, Edmonton, AB, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorB.J. McKinnon, B.J. McKinnon Shea Ear Clinic, Memphis, TN, USASearch for more papers by this authorP. Monksfield, P. Monksfield University Hospitals Birmingham, Birmingham, UKSearch for more papers by this authorR. Sockalingham, R. Sockalingham Oticon Medical, Somerset, NJ, USASearch for more papers by this authorM.L. Johansson, M.L. Johansson Oticon Medical, Askim, Sweden Department of Biomaterials, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, SwedenSearch for more papers by this authorA.F. Snik, A.F. Snik Radboud University, Nijmegen, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this author First published: 18 November 2015 https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12559Citations: 6Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References 1Barker F., MacKenzie E., Elliott L. et al. (2015) Outcome measurement in adult auditory rehabilitation: a scoping review of measures used in randomized controlled trials. Ear Hear. 36 (5), 567–573 2Tugwell P., Boers M., Brooks P. et al. (2007) OMERACT: an international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials 8, 38 3McLarnon C.M., Johnson I., Davison T. et al. (2012) Evidence for early loading of osseointegrated implants for bone conduction at 4 weeks. Otol. Neurotol. 33, 1578–1582 4Stalfors J. & Tjellström A. (2008) Skin reactions after BAHA surgery: a comparison between the U-graft technique and the BAHA dermatome. Otol. Neurotol. 29, 1109–1114 5Secord A.A., Coleman R.L., Havrilesky L.J. et al. (2015) Patient-reported outcomes as end points and outcome indicators in solid tumours. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 12 (6), 358–370 6Gargon E., Williamson P.R., Altman D.G. et al. (2014) The COMET Initiative database: progress and activities from 2011 to 2013. Trials 15, 279 7Terwee C.B., Mokkink L.B., Knol D.L. et al. (2012) Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual. Life Res. 21, 651–657 8Danermark B., Cieza A., Gangé J.-P. et al. (2010) International classification of functioning, disability, and health core sets for hearing loss: a discussion paper and invitation. Int. J. Audiol. 49, 256–262 9Granberg S., Swanepoel D.W., Englund U. et al. (2014) The ICF core sets for hearing loss project: international expert survey on functioning and disability of adults with hearing loss using the international classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF). Int. J. Audiol. 53, 497–506 10Granberg S., Möller K., Skagerstrand A. et al. (2014) The ICF Core Sets for hearing loss: researcher perspective, Part II: linking outcome measures to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Int. J. Audiol. 53, 77–87 11Cox R., Hyde M., Gatehouse S. et al. (2000) Optimal outcome measures, research priorities, and international cooperation. Ear Hear. 21, 106S–115S 12Gurgel R.K., Jackler R.K., Dobie R.A. et al. (2012) A new standardized format for reporting hearing outcome in clinical trials. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 147, 803–807 13Boers M., Brooks P., Strand C.V. et al. (1998) The OMERACT filter for outcome measures in rheumatology. J. Rheumatol. 25, 198–199 14Boers M., Kirwan J.R., Wells G. et al. (2014) Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 67, 745–753 15Bartlett S.J., Bykerk V.P., Cooksey R. et al. (2015) Feasibility and domain validation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) flare core domain set: report of the OMERACT 2014 RA Flare Group Plenary. J. Rheumatol. [Epub ahead of print] 16Bassi F., Carr A.B., Chang T.-L. et al. (2013) Oral rehabilitation outcomes network-ORONet. Int. J. Prosthodont. 26, 319–322 17Bassi F., Carr A.B., Chang T.-L. et al. (2013) Clinical outcomes measures for assessment of longevity in the dental implant literature: ORONet approach. Int. J. Prosthodont. 26, 323–330 18Bassi F., Carr A.B., Chang T.-L. et al. (2013) Functional outcomes for clinical evaluation of implant restorations. Int. J. Prosthodont. 26, 411–418 19Bassi F., Carr A.B., Chang T.-L. et al. (2013) Economic outcomes in prosthodontics. Int. J. Prosthodont. 26, 465–469 20Boers M., Kirwan J.R., Tugwell P. et al. (2014) The OMERACT Handbook. OMERACT, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 21Hall D.A., Haider H., Kikidis D. et al. (2015) Toward a global consensus on outcome measures for clinical trials in Tinnitus: report from the first international meeting of the COMiT initiative, November 14, 2014, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Trends Hear. 19, 1–7 Citing Literature Volume40, Issue6December 2015Pages 512-515 ReferencesRelatedInformation
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 | 0.003 | 0.236 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".