Public Perception of the Burden of Microtia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microtia is associated with psychosocial burden and stigma. The authors' objective was to determine the potential impact of being born with microtia by using validated health state utility assessment measures. An online utility assessment using visual analogue scale, time tradeoff, and standard gamble was used to determine utilities for microtia with or without ipsilateral deafness, monocular blindness, and binocular blindness from a prospective sample of the general population. Utility scores were compared between health states using Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Univariate regression was performed using sex, age, race, and education as independent predictors of utility scores. Over a 6-month enrollment period, 104 participants were included in the analysis. Visual analogue scale (median 0.80, interquartile range [0.72-0.85]), time tradeoff (0.88 [0.77-0.91]), and standard gamble (0.91 [0.84-0.97]) scores for microtia with ipsilateral deafness were higher (P <0.01) than those of binocular blindness (visual analogue scale, 0.30 [0.20-0.45]; time tradeoff, 0.42 [0.17-0.67]; and standard gamble, 0.52 [0.36-0.78]). Time trade-off scores for microtia with deafness were not different from monocular blindness (0.83 [0.67-0.91]). Higher level of education was associated with higher time tradeoff and standard gamble scores for microtia with or without deafness (P <0.05). Using objective health state utility scores, the current study demonstrates that the perceived burden of microtia with or without deafness is no different or less than monocular blindness. Given high utility scores for microtia, delaying autologous reconstruction beyond school entrance age may be justified.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".