Patient-Reported Measures of Hearing Loss and Tinnitus in Pediatric Cancer and Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We identified studies that described use of any patient-reported outcome scale for hearing loss or tinnitus among children and adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients. Method: In this systematic review, we performed electronic searches of OvidSP MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO to August 2015. We included studies if they used any patient-reported scale of hearing loss or tinnitus among children and AYAs with cancer or HSCT recipients. Only English language publications were included. Two reviewers identified studies and abstracted data. Results: There were 953 studies screened; 6 met eligibility criteria. All studies administered hearing patient-reported outcomes only once, after therapy completion. None of the studies described the psychometric properties of the hearing-specific component. Three instruments (among 6 studies) were used: Health Utilities Index (Barr et al., 2000; Fu et al., 2006; Kennedy et al., 2014), Hearing Measurement Scales (Einar-Jon et al., 2011; Einarsson et al., 2011), and the Tinnitus Questionnaire for Auditory Brainstem Implant (Soussi & Otto, 1994). All had limitations, precluding routine use for hearing assessment in this population. Conclusions: We identified few studies that included hearing patient-reported measures for children and AYA cancer and HSCT patients. None are ideal to take forward into future studies. Future work should focus on the creation of a new psychometrically sound instrument for hearing outcomes in this population.
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 | 0.009 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".