Use of Large Data Sets in Evaluating Program Outcome in Pediatric Hearing Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionPermanent hearing loss (PHL) in childhood can profoundly impact development, with high economic costs to children and society. Hearing technology and service delivery advances, including universal newborn hearing screening implemented in Ontario in 2002 as part of the Infant Hearing Program (IHP), aim to improve outcomes of children with PHL. Objectives and ApproachWe examined the impact of IHP screening on age of identification of PHL, and compared healthcare utilization in children with and without PHL, in the Census Metropolitan Area of Ottawa. Children with PHL, identified from a database at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, were linked to health administrative data housed at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Five residents of Ottawa acted as non-PHL controls for each PHL case. A regression discontinuity design (RDD) was used to investigate differences in age of identification pre- and post-IHP implementation. Poisson regression will compare healthcare utilization among children with and without PHL. ResultsReceipt of the HBPB was associated with reductions in low birth weight births (adjusted Relative Risk (aRR): 0.77; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.93) and preterm births (aRR: 0.78 (0.68, 0.90)), and increases in breastfeeding initiation (aRR: 1.05 (1.00, 1.09)) and large-for-gestational age births (aRR: 1.11 (1.01, 1.23)). HBPB receipt during pregnancy was also associated with increases in 1- and 2-year immunizations for FN children (aRR: 1.14 (1.09, 1.19), and aRR: 1.28 (1.19, 1.36), respectively). Reductions in the risk of being developmentally vulnerable in the language and cognitive domain of the EDI were also found for FN children whose mothers had received the HBPB during pregnancy (aRR: 0.85 (0.74, 0.97). Conclusion/ImplicationsIHP implementation resulted in earlier identificationof PHL in children, allowing earlier access to audiologic and habilitative services. However, children with PHL used the health system more often and in different ways from those without PHL. These results can support improvements in service delivery for children with PHL.
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 | 0.156 | 0.348 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".