MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Programming cochlear implant stimulation levels in infants and children with a combination of objective measures

2004· article· en· W330139773 on OpenAlexaff
Karen A. Gordon, Blake C. Papsin, Robert V. Harrison

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Audiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCochlear implantAudiologyImplantStimulationAcoustic reflexReflexMedicineHearing lossSurgeryAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a method of obtaining audible and comfortable stimulation levels with the use of objective measures when reliable behavioral testing is not possible. Electrically evoked compound action potentials of the auditory nerve (ECAPs) and stapedius reflex (ESR) thresholds were measured in 68 children who use Nucleus devices, beginning at implantation in the operating room (OR) and continuing over the first year of implant use at three implant electrodes. Generic correction factors based on group data were subtracted from ECAP thresholds obtained in the OR. The correction factors were specified for two groups of electrodes and two age groups of children. Objective thresholds exceeded behavioral values in 75% of children and were lower than minimum ESR thresholds in 85% of children. Mean dynamic ranges between the two objective measures spanned 23-36 Clinical Units across the implanted array. Maximum levels, based on ESR thresholds measured in the OR, can be globally adjusted to maintain comfortable stimulation levels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of AudiologySame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207