MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322210061 · doi:10.1097/mao.0b013e318214ea88

Soft Tissue Complications After Pediatric Cochlear Implantation in Children Younger Than 12 Months

2011· article· en· W2322210061 on OpenAlexaffabout
Prodip K. Das Purkayastha, Stephanie Jewell, Adrian L. James, Karen A. Gordon, Blake C. Papsin

Bibliographic record

VenueOtology & Neurotology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochlear implantationCochlear implantHearing lossSoft tissueImplantComplicationRetrospective cohort studySurgeryYoung adultPediatricsAudiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Children are undergoing cochlear implantation younger than ever before. There has been some concern that young children may have an increased risk of soft tissue complications than older age groups. We aim to review the major and minor soft tissue complications after pediatric cochlear implantation in the age group of younger than 12 months. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. METHODS: Patients were identified from the cochlear implant program database of more than 1,000 children at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. Demographic data, cause of hearing loss, and time of the onset of hearing loss were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 66 patients were identified (94 implants) in the age group of younger than 12 months. Of these, there was 1 minor complication (implanted at 8 mo)-skin infection around implant 14 days later treated with antibiotics. There were no major complications. CONCLUSION: Cochlear implantation in children younger than 12 months does not increase the risk of soft tissue 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtology & NeurotologySame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207