A Retrospective Comparative Chart Review of Hearing Recovery in Neural and Sensory Type Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The pathogenesis of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss is complex, and the prognosis for recovery is variable. While the pathological lesion is thought to be localized to the cochlea, recent microRNA findings suggest a primarily neuro-topic pathogenesis at least in some patients. This study seeks to use established hearing-loss categorization systems to distinguish neural from non-neural hearing loss patients and determine if the two groups differ in functional recovery. Methods The Charts of 132 Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss patients presenting at Vancouver General Hospital (November 2013-June 2019) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients’ characteristics, treatment modality, Pure Tone Audiometric thresholds (averaged across four frequencies: 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 kHz), and Word Recognition Scores were collected. Neural type Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss was defined as a presenting Word Recognition Score (<60%), with a Word Recognition Score reduction 20% greater than expected based on the averaged pure tone audiometric loss. Hearing recovery was defined as an improvement of ≥ 10 decibels in pure tone audiometric thresholds. Results 48 patients meeting the American Academy of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery 2019 diagnostic criteria and with comprehensive data were included. 12 (mean age ± standard deviation: 57.7±14.9 years) and 36 (55.3±15.2 years) patients were classified as neural and sensory Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss, respectively. 66.7% (8/12) and (24/36) of neural and non-neural Sudden Sensorineural hearing loss patients, respectively demonstrated hearing recovery. The affected ear’s initial Word Recognition Score (mean ± standard deviation %): 17.1±17.6 and 71.5±35.5 (p < 0.0001), and Word Recognition Score change with treatment: 46.9±29.8 and 3.2±25.8 (p < 0.0001), in neural and non-neural patients, respectively were significantly different. Conclusion The hearing recovery rate in neural and sensory type Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss patients was similar. Patients with a neural type of hearing loss demonstrated greater word recognition score recovery after treatment than those in the sensory group.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".