Examining the Spatial Varying Effects of Sociodemographic Factors on Adult Cochlear Implantation Using Geographically Weighted Poisson Regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To (i) demonstrate the utility of geographically weighted Poisson regression (GWPR) in describing geographical patterns of adult cochlear implant (CI) incidence in relation to sociodemographic factors in a publicly funded healthcare system, and (ii) compare Poisson regression and GWPR to fit the aforementioned relationship. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of provincial CI Program database. SETTING: Academic hospital. PATIENTS: Adults 18 years or older who received a CI from 2020 to 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Cochlear implant. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CI incidence based on income level, education attainment, age at implantation, and distance from center, and spatial autocorrelation across census metropolitan areas. RESULTS: Adult CI incidence varied spatially across Ontario (Moran's I = 0.04, p < 0.05). Poisson regression demonstrated positive associations between implantation and lower income level (coefficient = 0.0284, p < 0.05) and younger age (coefficient = 0.1075, p < 0.01), and a negative association with distance to CI center (coefficient = -0.0060, p < 0.01). Spatial autocorrelation was significant in Poisson model (Moran's I = 0.13, p < 0.05). GWPR accounted for spatial differences (Moran's I = 0.24, p < 0.690), and similar associations to Poisson were observed. GWPR further identified clusters of implantation in South Central census metropolitan areas with higher education attainment. CONCLUSIONS: Adult CI incidence demonstrated a nonstationary relationship between implantation and the studied sociodemographic factors. GWPR performed better than Poisson regression in accounting for these local spatial variations. These results support the development of targeted interventions to improve access and utilization to CIs in a publicly funded healthcare system.
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 | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".