MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378347697 · doi:10.1080/14992027.2023.2211738

Long-term follow-up of children with hearing loss that is minimally progressive

2023· article· en· W4378347697 on OpenAlexafffund
Elizabeth M. Fitzpatrick, Rola Hashem, JoAnne Whittingham, Flora Nassrallah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Audiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsAgricultural Research Institute of OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAudiologyTerm (time)Hearing lossMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to describe changes in audiometric thresholds over time in children whose hearing loss demonstrated early mild progression. DESIGN: This was a retrospective follow-up study to examine long-term audiologic results in children with progressive loss. STUDY SAMPLE: We examined audiologic data for 69 children, (diagnosed from 2003 to 2013), who had been previously categorised as having "minimal" progressive hearing loss. RESULTS: Children had a median of 10.0 (7.5, 12.1) years of follow-up and a median age of 12.5 (IQR: 11.0, 14.5) years; 92.8%; 64 of 69) of children continued to show progressive hearing loss (defined as a decrease of ≥10 dB at two or more adjacent frequencies between 0.5 and 4 kHz or a decrease in 15 dB at one frequency) in at least one ear since diagnosis. Further examination showed that 82.8% of ears (106 of 128) had deterioration in hearing. Of the 64 children, 29.7% (19/64) showed further deterioration since the first analysis. CONCLUSION: More than 90% of children identified as having minimal progressive hearing loss continued to show deterioration in hearing. Ongoing audiological monitoring of children with hearing loss is indicated to ensure timely intervention and to better counsel families.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of AudiologySame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207