Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This is a retrospective case review study. Current understanding of cochlear implantation in patients with superficial siderosis is limited, with roughly 15 reported cases worldwide. The purpose of this study is to report an additional case of cochlear implantation in a patient with superficial siderosis and to contribute to the current literature available on outcomes of implantation in these individuals. PATIENTS: One cochlear implant user with superficial siderosis in a tertiary referral center. INTERVENTION(S): Therapeutic and rehabilitative. MAIN OUTCOME AND RESULTS: Open set speech perception word scores increased from 0% preimplantation with bilateral hearing aids to 8% postimplantation in the bimodal condition (cochlear implant in the left ear and hearing aid in the right ear). Phoneme scores increased from 16% preimplantation to 36% postimplantation. The patient also demonstrated improvement from 38% preimplantation to 83% postimplantation on a closed set word test. Performance on open set recorded sentences did not improve; however, open set sentences administered live voice revealed an increase in performance from 4% preimplantation to 25% postimplantation in the auditory only condition and from 59% to 86% in the auditory-visual condition. CONCLUSION: For this patient with superficial siderosis, only marginal improvements in test scores at 11 months postimplantation were seen. Minimally, the use of a cochlear implant did prevent further deterioration of auditory performance. Therefore, patients with superficial siderosis who choose to proceed with cochlear implantation may still report perceived benefit from the maintenance of speech perception abilities even in the presence of minimal improvement. Rapid deterioration in hearing thresholds and speech discrimination before implantation may be an indicator of an actively progressing case of superficial siderosis, which may suggest possible limited benefit from cochlear implantation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.018 |
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".