The Modern Hearing Care Landscape: Toward the Provision of Personalized, Dynamic, and Adaptive Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New technologies and developments in hearing healthcare are rapidly transforming service models, delivery channels, and available solutions. These advances are reshaping the ways in which care is provided, leading to greater personalization, service efficiencies, and improved access to care, to name a few benefits. Connected hearing care is one model with the potential to embrace this "customized" hearing experience by forging a hybrid of health-technology connections, as well as traditional face-to-face interactions between clients, providers, and persons integral to the care journey. This article will discuss the many components of connected care, encompassing variations of traditional and teleaudiology-focused services, clinic-based and direct-to-consumer channels, in addition to the varying levels of engagement and readiness defining the touch points for clients to access a continuum of connected hearing care. The emerging hearing healthcare system is one that is dynamic and adaptive, allowing for personalized care, but also shifting the focus to the client's needs and preferences. This shift in the care model, largely driven by innovation and the growing opportunities for clients to engage with hearing technology, brings forth new, exciting, and sometimes uncomfortable discussion points for both the provider and client. The modern hearing care landscape benefits clients to better meet their needs and preferences in a more personalized style, and providers to better support and address those needs and preferences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".