Hearing impairment and ear anomalies in craniofacial microsomia: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review was to review the literature on hearing impairment and ear anomalies in patients with craniofacial microsomia and to determine their prevalence. Sixty-two records including 5122 patients were included. Ear anomalies were present in 52-100% of patients. The most reported external ear malformations were microtia, pre-auricular tags, and atresia of the external auditory canal. Ossicular anomalies were the most reported middle ear malformations, whereas the most reported inner ear malformations included oval window anomalies, cochlear anomalies, and anomalies of the semicircular canals. Hearing loss in general was reported in 29-100% of patients, which comprised conductive hearing loss, mixed hearing loss, and sensorineural hearing loss. Between 21% and 51% of patients used hearing aids, and 58% underwent a surgical intervention to improve hearing. The relationship between different phenotypes of craniofacial microsomia and the type and severity of hearing loss is mostly unclear. In conclusion, the high prevalence of ear and hearing anomalies in patients with craniofacial microsomia underlines the importance of audiological screening in order to facilitate individual treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".