Variability in Perioperative Steroid Therapy Regimen for Cochlear Implantation as It Relates to Hearing Preservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to identify practice trends and association between physician training and administration of perioperative steroids for cochlear implantation (CI) as it relates to hearing preservation. BACKGROUND: Perioperative steroid therapy regimens are postulated to protect residual hearing and improve hearing preservation outcomes in CI. METHODS: A 27-question online survey was developed by the senior authors using the Qualtrics Survey Tool, then distributed via email from September to November 2022 to otolaryngologists specializing in otology or neurotology and who practice in the United States or Canada. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 463 physicians, 162 (35.0%) of whom completed the survey. One hundred forty-four (31.1%) responses underwent analysis. All physicians administering preoperative steroids (n = 31) prefer preoperative oral prednisone. Of 143 physicians administering intraoperative steroids, 54.5% prefer intraoperative intravenous dexamethasone. More than half (77.6%) of 85 physicians administering postoperative steroids prefer postoperative oral prednisone. Postoperative steroid administration (p < 0.006) and taper utilization (p < 0.041) were greater among physicians who complete greater than 40 CIs annually (n = 47 [71.2%]; n = 30 [49.2%]) than physicians who complete up to 40 CIs annually (n = 37 [48.7%]; n = 20 [31.3%]), respectively. Physicians practicing for 5 to 20 years after residency are more prevalent in using postoperative steroid tapers than physicians practicing for fewer than 5 years after and more than 20 years after residency (n = 37 [51.4%] versus n = 14 [25.5%], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Consensus is needed about the optimal steroid treatment for CI patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".