Long-term follow-up of children with hearing loss that is minimally progressive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".