MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7018631028

Early Detection of Pediatric Permanent Hearing Loss: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study

2024· article· en· W7018631028 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - USU (Utah State University) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHearing lossRetrospective cohort studyCohort studyCohortTympanometryCongenital hearing loss
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence has indicated that Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) programs have lowered the age of identifying permanent hearing loss (PHL) in childhood, a first step to intervention. However, limited research has compared the age of diagnosis before and after implementation in one jurisdiction across the full range of PHL.\nMethods: Children diagnosed with PHL in Ottawa, Canada were identified from the Child Hearing Lab database at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario and linked to Ontario health administrative data. Age of identification of PHL of children born in the pre-infant hearing program (IHP) era (1991-2002) was compared to those born in the decade after it (2003-2013), employing a regression discontinuity design.\nResults: Age at identification of PHL declined more rapidly in the post-IHP era compared to the pre-IHP period (β estimate of IHP*Time -2.12, 95% CI -0.59 to -3.65, P=0.007). This association remained when interactions between IHP, time, and severity of hearing loss were included (β IHP*Time -6.05, 95% CI -2.59 to -9.51, P<0.001).\nDiscussion: Implementation of Ontario’s EDHI program was associated with earlier diagnosis of PHL compared to the era before its implementation. This finding provides direct evidence of effectiveness across the range of PHL in one jurisdiction.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.214 · 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.

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - USU (Utah State University)Same topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207