Older Adults's Expectations of Cochlear Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: About a quarter of patients who receive a cochlear implant (CI) are over 60 years old. These patients were questioned up to 12 months after first cochlear implantation to find out the reasons for their decision, their expectations on and their experiences with their CI. Material and Methods: The retrospective survey, with a questionnaire designed for this purpose, took place in 32 patients aged 62 – 88 years (mean 73 years) up to 12 months after CI treatment. During regular follow-up appointments, speech understanding was measured using standard audiological testing techniques. The statistical evaluation was descriptive. Results: While deciding on a CI, 46% of patients had contact with CI users and found this contact to be very important to the decision-making process. Of the patients who had no contact with other CI carriers, 22% would have liked this contact for support. Expectations of the CI describe 87% of the elders as high to very high. After receiving CI, 59% of patients report that they can participate more in social events. Conclusions: Elderly patients who are eligible for a CI need contact for decision-making. This can also be done especially by experienced CI patients. The success of CI care is dependent not only on successful surgery but also on subjective parameters, such as the expectations. Publication History Publication Date: 23 April 2019 (online) © 2019. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".