MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413315640 · doi:10.1044/2025_aja-25-00066

Clinical Adaptation of the Minimum Speech Test Battery–Version 3

2025· article· en· W4413315640 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Heather L. Strader, Camille C. Dunn, Teresa A. Zwolan

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Audiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingUniversity of Florida HealthNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersYork UniversityCleveland ClinicFlorida Department of HealthMED-EL Medical ElectronicsUniversity of Miami
KeywordsCandidacyStandardizationTest (biology)Descriptive statisticsConsistency (knowledge bases)Protocol (science)PsychologyAdaptation (eye)AudiologyMedicineCochlear implantApplied psychologyMedical educationComputer scienceStatisticsArtificial intelligenceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The Minimum Speech Test Battery-Version 3 for adults (MSTB-3) was released in 2024 as an evidence-based, streamlined test battery for pre-operative determination of candidacy and postoperative assessment of adult cochlear implant (CI) performance. A survey was dispersed to examine clinicians' understanding and adoption of the new protocol and gain clinical insights on its implementation. METHOD: A link to a 32-question survey was distributed to audiologists via e-mail and social media platforms, collecting responses from 307 participants practicing in various settings. The survey assessed respondents' understanding of MSTB-3 materials, participation in training sessions, and integration of MSTB-3 recommendations into clinical care. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze data and identify trends. RESULTS: Results indicated that 89% of audiologists were familiar with the MSTB-3, with 60% having participated in one or more training sessions. Of the respondents, 85% reported incorporating parts or all of the MSTB-3 recommendations into their practices and 75% believed it improved standardization of CI evaluations. Clinicians reported using Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) word scores for CI candidacy decisions, consistent with MSTB-3 recommendations, but varied in the score criteria used to determine candidacy. Results show a trend toward more streamlined and efficient patient care delivery recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The MSTB-3 has facilitated greater consistency in CI evaluation and follow-up care, addressing historical variability in clinical practices. Its evidence-based approach, including streamlined test protocols and user-friendly tools, offers a framework for improved CI access and standardization. Further training and dissemination efforts are recommended to enhance clinicians' understanding and to address implementation challenges, ultimately advancing the quality of CI services and reducing disparities in care.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueAmerican Journal of AudiologySame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207