A Retrospective Comparative Chart Review of Hearing Recovery in Neural and Sensory Type Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective While the pathogenesis of sudden sensorineural hearing loss is thought to be localised to the cochlea, recent microRNA findings suggest a neuro-topic localisation in some patients. This study distinguishes if neural and non-neural groups differ in hearing recovery. Methods Neural-type hearing loss was defined as a presenting word recognition score less than 60 per cent, with a word recognition score reduction greater than 20 per cent than expected based on the averaged pure tone audiometry. Hearing recovery was defined as an improvement of greater than or equal to 10 decibels in pure tone audiometric thresholds. Results Eight of 12 and 24 of 36 of neural and non-neural hearing loss patients demonstrated hearing recovery, respectively. The affected ear's word recognition score (per cent) change with treatment were different between the neural and non-neural groups (46.9 ± 29.8 vs 3.2 ± 25.8 (p < 0.0001)). Conclusion The hearing recovery rate in neural and non-neural hearing loss groups was similar. Patients with neural-type hearing loss demonstrated greater word recognition score recovery post 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".