Evaluation of pediatric cochlear implant care throughout Europe: Is European pediatric cochlear implant care performed according to guidelines?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: International guidelines indicate that children with profound hearing loss should receive a cochlear implant (CI) soon after diagnosis in order to optimize speech and language rehabilitation. Although prompt rehabilitation is encouraged by current guidelines, delays in cochlear implantation are still present. This study investigated whether European countries establish timely pediatric CI care based on epidemiological, commercial, and clinical data. METHODS: ), and clinical (institutional) age-at-implantation data. The ages at implantation of pediatric patients in eight countries (the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Turkey, Portugal, and Italy) between 2005 and 2015 were evaluated. RESULTS: From 2010 onwards, over 30% of the pediatric CI candidates were implanted before 24 months of age. Northern European institutions implanted children on average around 12 months of age, whereas southern European institutions implanted children after 18 months of age. The Netherlands and Germany implanted earliest (between 6 and 11 months). DISCUSSION: Implemented newborn hearing screening programs and reimbursement rates of CIs vary greatly within Europe due to local, social, financial, and political differences. However, internationally accepted recommendations are applicable to this heterogeneous European CI practice. Although consensus on early pediatric cochlear implantation exists, this study identified marked delays in European care. CONCLUSION: Regardless of the great heterogeneity in European practice, reasons for latency should be identified on a national level and possibilities to prevent avoidable future implantation delays should be explored to provide national recommendations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".