Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Approaches Proposed to Children With Severe-to-Profound Prelinguistic Deafness on the Development of Auditory, Speech, and Language Skills: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this systematic review is to identify and evaluate the available scientific evidence on the effectiveness of rehabilitation approaches proposed to children with severe-to-profound prelinguistic deafness on the hearing, speech, and language skills development. Method Databases (PubMed, CINHAL, PsycInfo, Cochrane, ERIC, and EMBASE) were searched with relevant key words (children, deafness, rehabilitation approach, auditory, speech, and language). Studies published between 2000 and 2017 were included. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated with the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, and the level of evidence was evaluated with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. Every step of the selection and analysis was made by 2 independent judges. Results Of 1,739 articles listed in different databases, 38 met the inclusion criteria and were selected for analysis. The majority of included articles present a relatively low level of evidence. Rehabilitation approaches that do not include signs appear more frequently associated with a better auditory, speech, and language development, except for receptive language, than approaches that included any form of signs. Conclusion More robust studies are needed to decide on the approach to prioritize with severe-to-profound deaf children.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".