MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400033873 · doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000004245

Simulator Verification Is Potentially Beneficial for the Fitting of Softband Bone Conduction Hearing Devices in Young Children

2024· article· en· W4400033873 on OpenAlexaff
Le Sun, Lu Ping, Xinmiao Fan, Jian Wang, Xiaowei Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueOtology & Neurotology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBone conductionAudiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HYPOTHESIS: The current study employed a skull-simulator verification method to assess whether the output of softband bone conduction hearing devices (BCHDs) at the manufacturer's default settings deviated widely from the target determined by the fitting formula. BACKGROUND: Real ear analysis is utilized for the verification of the fitting of air conduction hearing devices (ACHDs) in a variety of institutions. This procedure, however, has not been used in the fitting of BCHDs, largely due to the difficulty of testing the output of these devices to temporal bones. Despite the availability of skull simulators, they have not been utilized clinically to measure BCHD output. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, single-center study enrolled 42 subjects, aged 3 months to 10 years, with microtia-atresia-associated mild-to-severe bilateral conductive hearing loss. Hearing sensitivity was evaluated behaviorally by pure tone audiometry (PTA) in 22 subjects 4 years or older (the PTA group), and by auditory brainstem response (ABR) in 20 subjects younger than 4 years (the ABR group). Following 6 months of subjects wearing the prescribed softband BCHDs, their dial level (DL) thresholds were reassessed while using their own BCHDs, configured with zero gain across all frequencies, functioning solely as a bone vibrator. These DL thresholds were inputted into the fitting formula, desired sensation level-bone conduction devices (DSL-BCD) for children, to obtain the target values of BCHD output. The simulator output of the BCHD programmed at the manufacturer's default setting was measured in response to speech presented at 55, 65, and 80 dB SPL, followed by gain adjustment based on the differences between the simulator output and the target. Aided speech intelligibility index (SII) was measured before and after the gain adjustment. RESULTS: The softband BCHDs at the manufacturer's settings generally had lower output than the prescribed target values. This difference was larger at low frequencies and low levels. Across the 12 points tested (four frequencies from 500 to 4000 Hz multiplied by three levels), 22 (52.3%) and 42 (100%) BCHDs had deviations of +7 and +5 dB, respectively, at one point or more. The gain adjustments reduced the deviation and improved the SII values at the two lower levels of speech presented. CONCLUSION: The simulator output of softband bone conduction hearing devices (BCHDs) with the manufacturer's settings may exhibit significant deviations from the formula. Objective output verification should be considered a beneficial step in BCHD fitting and is recommended when applicable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtology & NeurotologySame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207