Long-Term Hearing Outcomes After Hybrid Cochlear Implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine long-term (>5 yr) low-frequency hearing preservation after hybrid cochlear implantation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: Tertiary care center outpatient clinic. PATIENTS: All patients older than 21 years implanted with a Cochlear Hybrid L24 device from 2014 to 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Changes in low-frequency pure-tone average (LFPTA) were calculated at each of several time points relative to the date of implantation. The proportion of patients with preserved LFPTA at last follow-up and Kaplan-Meier estimates for loss of residual hearing were calculated in addition to hazard ratios for hearing loss according to patient- and surgery-specific factors. RESULTS: Thirty ears in 29 patients underwent hybrid cochlear implantation and were eligible for inclusion (mean age, 59 yr; 65% female). Mean preoperative LFPTA was 31.7 dB. Mean LFPTA across all implanted ears at first follow-up was 45.1 dB; no patient had experienced loss of residual hearing at first follow-up. Six patients had loss of residual hearing during the follow-up period, with Kaplan-Meier probability estimates of preserved hearing of 100% at 1 month, 90% at 12 months, 87% at 24 months, and 80% at 48 months. There was no association between loss of residual hearing and patient age, preoperative LFPTA, surgeon, or use of topical steroids intraoperatively (hazard ratios, 1.05 [0.96-1.15], 0.97 [0.88-1.05], 1.39 [0.20-9.46], 0.93 [0.09-9.74], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term (>5 yr) outcomes after hybrid cochlear implantation demonstrate good preservation of low-frequency hearing, with only modest decline in the long-term postimplantation, and a low proportion of loss of residual low-frequency hearing.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".