MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4285683837 · doi:10.53350/pjmhs221651099

Effects of Cochlear Implants on the Quality of Life of Children

2022· article· en· W4285683837 on OpenAlexaff
Namra Rasheed, Kousar Parveen, Muhammad Aqeel Ahmed

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsCollège Montmorency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCochlear implantationQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineRural areaAudiologyInformed consentPediatricsCochlear implantDemographyPsychologyAlternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of cochlear implants also examining the factors influencing the quality of life of children after CI. Study Design: Cross-sectional Place and Duration: PHFMC(BHU 189,Toba Tek Singh). Jan 2020-Oct 2020 Methods: Forty five children of aged between 3-10 years were presented in this study. Patients had cochlear implantation were included. Informed written consent was taken from the parents of children for demographically details in which age, sex, parent’s education status, residency and employment. Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0 - Generic core scale (PedsQLTM 4.0 - GCS) was used. Children were assessed in terms of communication, self-reliance, socio economic behavior, education, family understanding and effects of implantation. SPSS 23.0 version was used to analyze data. Results: Among 45 cases, majority of the patients 27 (60%) were males and 18 (40%) were females. 6.07±3.32 years were the mean age of the children. 24 (53.3%) cases were from urban areas and 19 (46.7%) patients had rural residency. Majority of the mothers 29 (64.4%) were housewives and 21 (46.7%) mothers were literate. Mean age at the time of surgery was 4.12±3.63 years. Mean time of cochlear implantation 4.01±1.21 years. We found that the improvement in communication with the known people was 23 (51.1%) and before cochlear implantation effectiveness of hearing aids were slightly low 11 (24.4%). We found that the improvement of social relationships, family well-being, within-family relationships, educational conditions, and self-reliance were all observed to be satisfactory. Conclusion: In this research we concluded that the cochlear implantation was significantly helpful for children in hearing, language understanding, self-reliance, educational conditions. An understanding of the child's and family's unique needs will aid in the development of personalized speech therapy, which can help enhance outcomes for rehabilitation. Keywords: Children, Cochlear Implant, Quality of life

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)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→