Prognostic Value of Electrophysiological and MRI Findings for Pediatric Cochlear Implant Outcomes: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), electric compound action potential (eCAP), and electric auditory brainstem response (eABR) are among the routine assessments performed before and/or after cochlear implantation. The objective of this review was to systematically summarize and critically appraise existing evidence of the prognostic value of eCAP, eABR, and MRI for predicting post-cochlear implant (CI) speech perception outcomes in children, with a particular focus on the lesion site. METHOD: The present systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement. Three electronic databases (ProQuest, PubMed, and Scopus) were searched with no restrictions on language, publication status, or year of publication. Studies on children identified with sensorineural hearing loss, auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder, cochlear nerve deficiency, or cochleovestibular nerve abnormalities reporting the relevance of eCAP, eABR, and/or MRI results to CI speech perception outcomes were included. The literature search yielded 1,887 publications. Methodological quality and strength of evidence were assessed by the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 25 included studies, the relevance of eCAP, eABR, and/or MRI findings to post-CI speech perception outcomes was reported in 10, 11, and 11 studies, respectively. The studies were strongly in support of the prognostic value of eABR and MRI for CI outcomes. However, the relevance of eCAP findings to speech perception outcomes was uncertain. CONCLUSION: Despite the promising findings, caution is warranted in interpreting them due to the observational and retrospective design of the included studies, as well as the heterogeneity of the population and the limited control of confounding factors within these studies. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.26169859.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it