MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317077094 · doi:10.1177/000348940211101212

Effects of Clarion Electrode Design on Mapping Levels in Children

2002· article· en· W2317077094 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kevin H. Franck, Roger R. Marsh, Udayan K. Shah, William P. Potsic

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Otology Rhinology & Laryngology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsCLARIONCochlear implantElectrodeAudiologyContext (archaeology)StimulationElectrode arrayImplantBiomedical engineeringComputer scienceMaterials scienceMedicinePsychologySurgeryChemistryArtificial intelligenceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design of the placement of the Clarion cochlear implant's intracochlear electrode array has undergone 2 revisions since its introduction, each to improve modiolar proximity. Stimulation with modiolar proximity may reduce current requirements for threshold levels and most comfortable levels of stimulation. This study analyzed the effects of electrode design on programming levels for deaf children implanted with the 3 cochlear implant designs and followed at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Psychophysical data were reported if measurements were taken approximately 3 months after initial activation, and programming parameters included nonsequential monopolar stimulation of 75-micros-per-phase biphasic pulses presented at 813 Hz per electrode. The threshold level and most comfortable programming level were measured by standard clinical techniques appropriate for children. The results indicate that the 2 electrode placement revisions have each significantly reduced threshold levels and most comfortable stimulation levels. These results are discussed in the context of device aesthetics, safety, and function.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Otology Rhinology & LaryngologySame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207