MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783076932 · doi:10.1159/000485310

The Role of Preoperative Steroids for Hearing Preservation Cochlear Implantation: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

2017· article· en· W2783076932 on OpenAlexaff
Jafri Kuthubutheen, Samidha Joglekar, Leah Smith, Lendra Friesen, Kari Smilsky, Tara Millman, Amy Ng, David Shipp, Harvey Coates, Christoph Arnoldner, Julian M. Nedzelski, Joseph Chen, Vincent Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueAudiology and Neurotology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersWilliam K. Warren Foundation
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialDexamethasoneCochlear implantationPrednisoloneHearing lossSurgeryAnesthesiaAudiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether preoperative steroids can improve hearing outcomes in cochlear implantation (CI). METHODS: This is a randomized controlled trial involving 30 postlingual deaf CI patients. Subjects had preoperative thresholds of better than or equal to 80 dB at 125 and 250 Hz, and better than or equal to 90 dB at 500 and 1,000 Hz. The subjects were randomized to a control group, an oral steroid group (receiving 1 mg/kg/day of prednisolone for 6 days prior to surgery), or a transtympanic steroid group (receiving a single dose of 0.5 mL of 10 mg/mL dexamethasone at 24 h prior to surgery). RESULTS: The subjects receiving transtympanic steroids had a significant decrease in the pure tone average over 3 months compared to the control and oral steroid group, which persisted over 12 months (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A single dose of preoperative transtympanic steroids prior to CI appears to have a beneficial effect, at least in the short term, with minimal effects seen in the longer term.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAudiology and NeurotologySame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207