Cochlear Implants in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Unexplained outcome variability exists among adults with cochlear implants (CIs). Two significant predictors are age and duration of deafness, with older patients and those with longer durations of deafness generally demonstrating poorer speech recognition. However, these factors are often highly correlated. Thus, it is unclear whether poorer outcomes should be attributed primarily to age-related declines or to the experience of auditory deprivation. Our aim was to examine the effects of aging and duration of hearing loss on outcomes for postlingually deaf adults with CIs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of adults who received CIs from 1983 to 2014. SETTING: Tertiary adult CI program. PATIENTS: Sixty-four adult patients with postlingual hearing loss beginning after age 12 years, full electrode insertion, normal cochlear anatomy, and availability of postoperative outcome measures. INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation with 12 months or greater of device use. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative pure-tone averages (0.5, 1, 2, and 3 kHz) and recognition of words in sentences (Hearing in Noise Test and AzBio). RESULTS: Age at postoperative testing had a negative partial correlation with AzBio scores, when controlling for duration of deafness, whereas duration of deafness had a positive partial correlation with AzBio scores, when controlling for age. No other effects were identified. CONCLUSION: Older age at testing was associated with poorer recognition of words in difficult sentences, suggesting that cognitive aging may negatively impact CI outcomes. Further studies are needed to examine how a long duration of auditory deprivation affects CI outcomes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".