ArticleJournal of otology2025
Machine Learning Models for Predicting Vestibular Function After Cochlear Implantation.
Article in Journal of otology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the effectiveness of machine learning in automating the prediction of vestibular abnormalities after cochlear implantation (CI) in patients with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), with the goal of developing a practical model that can accurately predict long-term vestibular function outcomes and identify associated risk factors. Methods: Clinical data, including imaging, vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (VEMPs), and auditory information, were collected from patients with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) before and after CI. The decision tree algorithm was employed to address missing values and screen pre-CI clinical features. Six machine learning methods were subsequently utilized to predict the relationships between the extracted features and post-CI vestibular dysfunction. The best-performing method determined the ranking of feature importance, which was regarded as risk factors for predicting symptoms and VEMPs results after CI. Results: Logistic regression models effectively predicted both post-CI vestibular dysfunction and abnormal cervical VEMP (cVEMP), with accuracies of 80% and 78%, respectively. The relative importance of the features, in descending order, was as follows: cVEMP latency, cVEMP amplitude, and residual hearing threshold. Moreover, the support vector machine (SVM) model attained an accuracy of 88% in predicting abnormal ocular VEMP (oVEMP) post-CI. For the SVM model, the feature importance ranking was as follows: oVEMP latency, oVEMP amplitude, and residual hearing threshold. Conclusions: This study successfully leverages machine learning techniques, specifically support vector machines (SVM) and logistic regression models, to predict the impact of CI on vestibular function. These predictive models provide valuable insights for presurgical planning and decision-making in CI procedures. Moreover, the findings highlight the critical risk factors associated with vestibular dysfunction, offering a robust reference for guiding vestibular rehabilitation strategies.
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.