Cochlear implantation in elderly patients: stability of outcome over time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cochlear implantation is the standard of care for treating severe to profound hearing loss in all age groups. There is limited data on long-term results in elderly implantees and the effect of ageing on outcomes. This study compared the stability of cochlear implantation outcome in elderly and younger patients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of cochlear implant patients with a minimum follow up of five years was conducted. RESULTS: The study included 87 patients with a mean follow up of 6.8 years. Of these, 22 patients were older than 70 years at the time of implantation. Hearing in Noise Test scores at one year after implantation were worse in the elderly: 85.3 (aged under 61 years), 80.5 (61-70 years) and 73.6 (aged over 70 years; p = 0.039). The respective scores at the last follow up were 84.8, 85.1 and 76.5 (p = 0.054). Most patients had a stable outcome during follow up. Of the elderly patients, 13.6 per cent improved and none had a reduction in score of more than 20 per cent. Similar to younger patients, elderly patients had improved Short Form 36 Health Survey scores during follow up. CONCLUSION: Cochlear implantation improves both audiometric outcome and quality of life in elderly patients. These benefits are stable over time.
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 | 0.001 | 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".