Assessment of the psychosocial impacts of cochlear implants on adult recipients and their partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In the present study we sought to evaluate the psychosocial and quality of life (QOL) impacts of cochlear implant (CI) treatment on both CI recipients and their partners in a Canadian population. METHODS: A qualitative cross-sectional contemporary cohort evaluation was conducted by distributing specifically designed questionnaires to both CI recipients and their partners at their follow-up appointments over a month at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. RESULTS: It was found that both CI recipients and their partners demonstrated substantial benefit and improvement in multiple psychosocial domains. DISCUSSION: Musical listening was found to show variable improvements between recipients. Further analysis found a simple correlation where the group of recipients who all had a hearing disability for a longer duration had demonstrated a higher proportion of improvement in musical listening. CI recipients endorsed having improved QOL which was in agreement with proxy observation by partners. CONCLUSION: Overall, CI use has been shown to have significant benefit to psychosocial well-being of CI recipients. This benefit is also conferred to their caregivers/partners; which in our society concerned about caregiver burden is quite important to recognize.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".