Progressive Hearing Loss in Children With Mild Bilateral Hearing Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study investigated progressive hearing loss in a cohort of children who were identified with permanent mild bilateral hearing loss. Method This population-based study included 207 children with permanent mild bilateral hearing loss, diagnosed and followed from 2003 to 2016 in 1 region of Canada. Clinical characteristics and initial audiologic results were collected prospectively at diagnosis, and audiologic information was updated. Changes in hearing levels between the 1st and most recent assessment were analyzed to determine progressive hearing loss. Clinical characteristics were compared between children with progressive and stable hearing loss. The association between risk indicators and progressive hearing loss was explored through logistic regression. Results A total of 47.4% (94 of 207) had progressive hearing loss in at least 1 ear, and 50% (47 of 94) of those experienced more than 20-dB average drop in thresholds. For these 94 children, a total of 147 ears were affected, and 116 (78.9%) ears experienced sufficient change in thresholds to be coded as a worse category of hearing loss. In the subset of 85 children with more than 5 years of audiologic follow-up, 56.4% (53/85) showed a decrease in hearing. Of the total sample of 207 children, 137 (66.2%) continued to have mild hearing loss in the better ear. There was no association between the risk factors examined (family history of hearing loss, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, or presence of a syndrome) and progressive hearing loss. Conclusion This study found that almost half of children with mild bilateral hearing loss showed a decrease in hearing in at least 1 ear. One third of the children first diagnosed with mild hearing loss in the better ear now have moderate or worse hearing loss in both ears. These findings point to the importance of careful long-term monitoring of children who present with mild hearing loss.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".