Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36105773›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022

Objectification of intracochlear electrocochleography using machine learning.

Klaus Schuerch, Wilhelm Wimmer, Adrian Dalbert, Christian Rummel, Marco Caversaccio, Georgios Mantokoudis, Stefan Weder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [A clinical study of electrocochleography monitoring for residual hearing retention during minimally invasive cochlear implant].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025
    Article
  2. Amplitude and Phase Changes in Electrocochleographic Real-Time Recordings During Cochlear Implantation and Its Relation to Pre- and Postoperative Hearing.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Klaus SchuerchDepartment of ENT, Head and Neck Surgery, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Wilhelm WimmerDepartment of ENT, Head and Neck Surgery, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Adrian DalbertDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Christian RummelSupport Center for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Marco CaversaccioDepartment of ENT, Head and Neck Surgery, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Georgios MantokoudisDepartment of ENT, Head and Neck Surgery, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Stefan WederDepartment of ENT, Head and Neck Surgery, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Electrocochleography (ECochG) measures inner ear potentials in response to acoustic stimulation. In patients with cochlear implant (CI), the technique is increasingly used to monitor residual inner ear function. So far, when analyzing ECochG potentials, the visual assessment has been the gold standard. However, visual assessment requires a high level of experience to interpret the signals. Furthermore, expert-dependent assessment leads to inconsistency and a lack of reproducibility. The aim of this study was to automate and objectify the analysis of cochlear microphonic (CM) signals in ECochG recordings. Methods: Prospective cohort study including 41 implanted ears with residual hearing. We measured ECochG potentials at four different electrodes and only at stable electrode positions (after full insertion or postoperatively). When stimulating acoustically, depending on the individual residual hearing, we used three different intensity levels of pure tones (i.e., supra-, near-, and sub-threshold stimulation; 250-2,000 Hz). Our aim was to obtain ECochG potentials with differing SNRs. To objectify the detection of CM signals, we compared three different methods: correlation analysis, Hotelling's T Results: For the visual analysis of ECochG recordings, the Fleiss' kappa value demonstrated a substantial to almost perfect agreement among the three examiners. We used the labels as ground truth to train our objectification methods. Thereby, the deep learning algorithm performed best (area under curve = 0.97, accuracy = 0.92), closely followed by Hotelling's T Conclusions: Objectification of ECochG signals is possible with the presented methods. Deep learning and Hotelling's T

Indexed as

cochlear implantcorrelation analysisdeep learningECochGelectroacoustic stimulationHotelling's T2residual hearingsignal processing

Identifiers

PMID36105773
PMCPMC9465334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.