Prioritization of Reimplantation in Previously Successful Cochlear Implantation Following Natural Device Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cochlear reimplantation procedures account for approximately 5% of all implant cases and may be caused by internal device failure, skin flap complications, or an unexpected decline in auditory performance. This issue, in concert with changing demographics, expanded audiometric candidacy criteria, adult bilateral implantation, and implantation for unilateral hearing loss, all place escalating pressure on device availability and resource allocation in a publically funded health care system. OBJECTIVE: The predictable and problematic access to a scare medical resource requires rigor in establishing program priority and formal policy. We present a single cochlear implant center's working reflections and an attempt at a principled approach to rationing health care decisions. METHODS: Different approaches to health care rationing are examined and discussed. We describe a method of allocation that is currently employed by a large Canadian quaternary care center and ground this method in important principles of distributive justice as they apply to health care systems. RESULTS: We elect to recognize device failure as analogous to sudden sensorineural hearing loss, with the associated need to expedite reimplantation. We consider this an ethical approach grounded in the egalitarian principle of equality of opportunity within cohorts of patients. CONCLUSION: Porting the practice from sudden sensorineural hearing loss, the time-sensitive need for hearing restoration, and maximized communication outcomes, dictates prioritization for this patient population. The predicted evolution of health systems globally and the shape of future medical practice will be heavily influenced by both the macro and micro level resource-dependent decisions implant centers currently face.
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 | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".