ArticlePloS one2022
Automatic analysis of cochlear response using electrocochleography signals during cochlear implant surgery.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence Assurance in Head and Neck Surgery: Now and Next.Proceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems · 2025Article
- ZH-ECochG Bode Plot: A Novel Approach to Visualize Electrocochleographic Data in Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- An intracochlear electrocochleography dataset - from raw data to objective analysis using deep learning.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Objective evaluation of intracochlear electrocochleography: repeatability, thresholds, and tonotopic patterns.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cochlear implants (CIs) provide an opportunity for the hearing impaired to perceive sound through electrical stimulation of the hearing (cochlear) nerve. However, there is a high risk of losing a patient's natural hearing during CI surgery, which has been shown to reduce speech perception in noisy environments as well as music appreciation. This is a major barrier to the adoption of CIs by the hearing impaired. Electrocochleography (ECochG) has been used to detect intra-operative trauma that may lead to loss of natural hearing. There is early evidence that ECochG can enable early intervention to save natural hearing of the patient. However, detection of trauma by observing changes in the ECochG response is typically carried out by a human expert. Here, we discuss a method of automating the analysis of cochlear responses during CI surgery. We establish, using historical patient data, that the proposed method is highly accurate (∼94% and ∼95% for sensitivity and specificity respectively) when compared to a human expert. The automation of real-time cochlear response analysis is expected to improve the scalability of ECochG and improve patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.