MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394768937 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhae145

Early-stage use of hearing aids preserves auditory cortical structure in children with sensorineural hearing loss

2024· article· en· W4394768937 on OpenAlexaff
Di Yuan, Elizabeth Tournis, Maura E. Ryan, Ching Man Lai, Xiujuan Geng, Nancy M. Young, Patrick C. M. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsSt. Clair College
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsAudiologySensorineural hearing lossCochlear implantAuditory cortexHearing lossHearing aidMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hearing is critical to spoken language, cognitive, and social development. Little is known about how early auditory experiences impact the brain structure of children with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. This study examined the influence of hearing aid use and residual hearing on the auditory cortex of children with severe to profound congenital sensorineural hearing loss. We evaluated cortical preservation in 103 young pediatric cochlear implant candidates (55 females and 48 males) by comparing their multivoxel pattern similarity of auditory cortical structure with that of 78 age-matched children with typical hearing. The results demonstrated that early-stage hearing aid use preserved the auditory cortex of children with bilateral congenital sensorineural hearing loss. Children with less residual hearing experienced a more pronounced advantage from hearing aid use. However, this beneficial effect gradually diminished after 17 months of hearing aid use. These findings support timely fitting of hearing aids in conjunction with early implantation to take advantage of neural preservation to maximize auditory and spoken language development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207