Cognitive Evaluation of Cochlear Implanted Adults Using CODEX and MoCA Screening Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The relationship between hearing loss and cognitive function has already been established. The objective of our study was to determine whether the two short cognitive tests, COgnitive Disorders EXamination (CODEX) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), could be used in daily clinical practice to detect cognitive impairment, and its changes after cochlear implantation. PATIENTS: Eighteen patients with severe to profound postlingual progressive hearing loss (mean age ± SEM: 64 ± 3.5 yr; range, 23-83 yr) were tested before, and 12 months after cochlear implantation, with adapted visual presentation of CODEX and MoCA tests. Auditory performance was tested under best-aided conditions in quiet and noise. RESULTS: Twelve months after cochlear implantation, hearing performance had clearly improved (paired t tests, p < 0.05). In addition, among the eight patients who had an abnormal cognitive score before implantation, four improved their cognitive performance, and were thus considered to be normal. No major alteration of cognitive performance was observed in the 10 patients who had normal cognitive performance before implantation. CONCLUSION: CODEX and MoCA are rapid tests that could be considered to be relevant cognitive performance screening tests. They could be used in daily clinical practice to improve the multidisciplinary sensory-cognitive monitoring of the elderly 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".