Cochlear Implant Performance in Adult Patients with Absent Intraoperative Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To describe cochlear implant performance outcomes in adult patients in whom no intraoperative electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) responses were able to be obtained despite intracochlear electrode placement. Study Design Retrospective case review. Setting Academic tertiary center. Subjects and Methods Patients 18 years of age and older undergoing cochlear implantation between May 2010 and September 2018 with absent ECAP measurements intraoperatively with intracochlear electrode positioning were identified. Patient performance on sentence recognition testing using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) and AzBio at 6 to 12 months postoperatively was compared to preimplantation scores. Additional collected data included patient demographics, etiology of hearing loss, and preoperative pure‐tone average (PTA) and word recognition scores (WRSs). Results Intraoperative ECAP measurements were unable to be obtained in 15 cochlear implants performed on 14 patients out of 383 cochlear implant cases. Of the patients with absent ECAP measures, the mean ± SD age was 61.7 ± 15.7 years. Causes of hearing loss included congenital hearing loss, meningitis, autoimmune inner ear disease, otosclerosis, presbycusis, and Ménière’s disease. The average preoperative PTA was 103.5 ± 17.0 dB. Twelve implanted ears had a WRS of 0% and 9 had a HINT score of 0% prior to surgery. The mean HINT score at 6 to 12 months postimplantation was 57.8% ± 37.8% and had improved by 42.6% ± 35.6% compared to the mean preimplantation HINT score (95% confidence interval, 22.0%‐63.1%, P =. 001, paired Student t test). Conclusion There is a wide range of cochlear implant performance in patients with absent intraoperative ECAP measures ranging from sound awareness to HINT scores of 100%.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".