The Effect of Cochlear Size on Cochlear Implantation Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine if cochlear duct length and cochlear basal diameter, measured using routinely available radiology software, affect hearing outcomes after cochlear implantation with two different length electrodes. METHODS: 55 patients who received a Med-El Flex electrode were retrospectively reviewed. 34 patients received the Flex 31 electrode (31mm) and 21 patients received the Flex 28 electrode (28mm). Preoperative high-resolution CT scans of the temporal bone were reformatted in the axial and coronal plane. The basal diameter of the cochlear (A-value) and the outer-wall lengths of the cochlear duct were measured using readily available imaging software. Postoperative plane X-rays were used to determine the degree of electrode insertion and the number of electrodes within the cochlea and speech discrimination scores at 6 months were evaluated. RESULTS: The cochlear metrics obtained were comparable with those previously published in the literature. There was no significant difference in the degree of insertion or speech outcomes between the two electrode lengths. However, when the group who had received the shorter electrode were analysed, there was an association seen between both cochlear duct length and cochlear diameter and speech outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Cochlear size may be a factor in determining speech outcomes that cannot be explained solely by insertion depth or degrees of insertion. Further studies are required to determine if cochlear duct length is an independent predictor of speech outcomes.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".