MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410814884 · doi:10.1159/000546569

The Effect of Comorbidities on Cochlear Implantation Outcomes in Adults Under 60

2025· article· en· W4410814884 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jamie Schlacter, Christine Schremp, Emily R. Spitzer, Susan B. Waltzman

Bibliographic record

VenueAudiology and Neurotology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsMedicineComorbidityEtiologyInternal medicineCohortAnxietyDemographicsPediatricsAsthmaPhysical therapyPsychiatryDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Prior studies have demonstrated that comorbid conditions can negatively impact cochlear implantation (CI) outcomes in elderly patients, but few have examined how comorbidities affect younger adult CI recipients. This study examines the relationship between comorbidities and CI outcomes in adults under 60 years old. METHODS: We reviewed all CI recipients between 20 and 60 years old from 2015 to 2019 at a tertiary academic medical center. Patient data were collected including comorbidities, demographics, etiology, and length of deafness (LOD). Patients' Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was calculated. The primary outcome was speech perception scores at 1 year on the consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word test. RESULTS: There were 118 patients who underwent CI (20-29 years [15%], 30-39 years [22%], 40-49 years [21%], 50-60 years [42%]), averaging 1.8 comorbidities. Mean LOD was 19.7 years, and most etiologies were unknown (53.4%). 34% had no comorbidities, and the most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (14%), asthma (10%), anxiety (8%), acoustic neuroma (8%), and arthritis (7%). Comorbidity frequency was similar across ages, but cardiovascular comorbidities varied by patient decade (50-60 years: 41% vs. 20-49 years: 12-22%, p = 0.004). Compared to studies on elderly CI outcomes, our cohort had fewer comorbidities with reduced cardiac events and neurological conditions. We did not find differences in 1-year CNC scores or complications based on the number of comorbidities or any single comorbidity. However, there was a difference in individual improvement in CNC word scores by age group (p = 0.024). Patients' CCI did not correlate to post-op scores. CONCLUSION: Subjects showed improved speech understanding post-CI. The number and type of comorbidities were not meaningful predictors of 1-year speech perception scores, suggesting adult CI users under 60 years with comorbidities can expect comparable outcomes to those without comorbidities. .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAudiology and NeurotologySame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207