Cochlear implant procedure. Italian Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Italian Society of Otorhinolaryngology (SIOeChCF) and Italian Society of Audiology and Phoniatrics (SIAF). Part 1: cochlear implants in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Cochlear implant (CI) is a well-established treatment for adults with sensorineural hearing loss and without benefit from hearing aids. The Italian guidelines date back 15 years; given the expansion of indications for CI, including single side deafness and asymmetrical hearing loss, it became necessary to establish updated guidelines. Methods: Thirteen experts and 2 patient representatives selected the key questions and drew up recommendations. The document was developed following GRADE methodology. The methodological team of the Mario Negri Pharmacological Research Institute performed systematic reviews for each question and supported the overall process. Results: Five key questions were identified and recommendations formulated, with subgroups and considerations on implementation. Conclusions: Though the systematic research of scientific literature found a scarcity of randomised trials and an overall poor conduct and reporting quality of primary studies and systematic reviews, strong or conditional recommendations in favour of CI have been formulated for different subgroups of patients. Further studies should enrol a larger number of participants and use consistent instruments to evaluate hearing outcomes, in order to increase the comparability of results and data pooling with meta-analysis.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.014 |
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".