Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38105510›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Classification of Acoustic Hearing Preservation After Cochlear Implantation Using Electrocochleography.

Leanne Sijgers, Torquil Sorensen, Andrew Soulby, Patrick Boyle, Adrian Dalbert, Christof Röösli, Greg Eigner Jablonski, Volkmar Hamacher, Ralf Greisiger, Dan Jiang and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

12 authors.

Leanne SijgersDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2584-0458
Torquil SorensenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Andrew SoulbyHearing Implant Centre, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Patrick BoyleEuropean Research Center, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Hannover, Germany.
Adrian DalbertDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Christof RöösliDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Greg Eigner JablonskiDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Volkmar HamacherEuropean Research Center, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Hannover, Germany.
Ralf GreisigerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Dan JiangHearing Implant Centre, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Alexander HuberDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Flurin PfiffnerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3937-1266

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective to preserve residual hearing during cochlear implantation has recently led to the use of intracochlear electrocochleography (ECochG) as an intraoperative monitoring tool. Currently, a decrease in the amplitude of the difference between responses to alternating-polarity stimuli (DIF response), predominantly reflecting the hair cell response, is used for providing feedback. Including other ECochG response components, such as phase changes and harmonic distortions, could improve the accuracy of surgical feedback. The objectives of the present study were (1) to compare simultaneously recorded stepwise intracochlear and extracochlear ECochG responses to 500 Hz tone bursts, (2) to explore patterns in features extracted from the intracochlear ECochG recordings relating to hearing preservation or hearing loss, and (3) to design support vector machine (SVM) and random forest (RF) classifiers of acoustic hearing preservation that treat each subject as a sample and use all intracochlear ECochG recordings made during electrode array insertion for classification. Forty subjects undergoing cochlear implant (CI) surgery at the Oslo University Hospital, St. Thomas' Hearing Implant Centre, or the University Hospital of Zurich were prospectively enrolled. In this cohort, DIF response amplitude decreases did not relate to postoperative acoustic hearing preservation. Exploratory analysis of the feature set extracted from the ECochG responses and preoperative audiogram showed that the features were not discriminative between outcome classes. The SVM and RF classifiers that were trained on these features could not distinguish cases with hearing loss and hearing preservation. These findings suggest that hearing loss following CI surgery is not always reflected in intraoperative ECochG recordings.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsDeafnessHearing LossAudiometry, Evoked ResponseCochleaHearingHumansclassifiercochlear implantelectrocochleographyrandom forestresidual hearingsupport vector machine

Identifiers

PMID38105510
PMCPMC10729624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.