Indications for bone-anchored hearing AIDS: a functional outcomes study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the functional outcomes of patients previously fitted with a bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) for unilateral conductive (UC), unilateral mixed (UM), or sensorineural (single-sided deafness [SSD]) hearing loss and compare them with those of patients with bilateral conductive hearing loss (BCHL). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort study. SETTING: The Institute for Reconstructive Sciences in Medicine (iRSM) at the Misercordia Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta. METHODS: Fifty patients with multiple types of hearing loss participated in this study. Postoperative subjective evaluation was completed with the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit questionnaire (APHAB). Objective evaluation was completed with the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT). RESULTS: The APHAB indicates that patients in all four groups find significant subjective improvement with their BAHA. SSQ data indicate that patients with BCHL and UCHL show a significantly higher preference for the sound quality of aided speech than patients with UMHL. Additionally, provision of a BAHA to patients with SSD does not allow them to subjectively localize sounds as well as it does the other groups. Significant improvements were found on the HINT in patients with BCHL, UCHL, and UMHL. There is no improvement in patients with SSD. CONCLUSION: BCHL, UCHL, and UMHL patients, both subjectively and objectively, do well with unilateral BAHA placement. Patients with SSD note subjective improvement but cannot localize sounds. More patients with UMHL and UCHL should be considered viable BAHA candidates. Patients with SSD should be cautioned that they may not experience similar objective benefits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".