Unilateral Hearing Loss Is Associated With Impaired Balance in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if children with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (UHL) demonstrate impaired balance compared with their normal hearing (NH) peers. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, case-control study. METHODS: Balance was assessed in14 UHL and 14 NH children using the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test-2 (BOT-2) and time to fall (TTF) in an immersive, virtual-reality laboratory. Postural control was quantified by center of pressure (COP) using force plates. The effect of vision on balance was assessed by comparing scores and COP characteristics on BOT-2 tasks performed with eyes open and closed. RESULTS: Balance ability as measured by the BOT-2 score was significantly worse in children with UHL compared with NH children (p = 0.004). TTF was shorter in children with UHL compared with NH children in the most difficult tasks when visual and somatosensory inputs were limited (p < 0.01). Visual input improved postural control (reduced COP variability) in both groups in all tasks (p < 0.05) but postural control as measured by COP variability was more affected in children with UHL when visual input was removed while performing moderately difficult tasks (i.e., standing on one foot) (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, children with UHL show poorer balance skills than NH children. Significant differences in TTF between the two groups were only seen in the most difficult tasks and therefore may be missed on routine clinical assessment. Children with UHL appear to rely more on vision for maintaining postural control than their NH peers. These findings may point to deficits not only in the hearing but also the vestibular portion of the inner ear.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".