ArticleEar and hearing
Early Cochlear Implant Outcomes Predict Long-Term Speech Recognition.
Article in Ear and hearing. 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEarly identification of cochlear implant (CI) users at risk for poor audiological outcomes may allow for timely intervention to optimize long-term CI benefit. This longitudinal study aims to develop and evaluate logistic regression models that can predict patients' 12-months speech recognition performance from their early speech recognition scores and other patient factors.
designThis retrospective cohort study included 625 postlingually deafened, adult CI users with bilateral hearing loss from 2 tertiary CI centers. Logistic regressions were fit to model the likelihood of a clinically significant improvement in consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word scores at 12-months postimplantation. All models included sex, race, age at implantation, duration of deafness, and pre-CI CNC score. The model performance benefit of adding CNC improvement status (improved versus not improved, with improvement defined as scoring beyond the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the preoperative score) at 1- or 3-months postactivation to the baseline models was evaluated by comparing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Data were combined across institutions and then separated into training and validation cohorts at a 3:1 ratio. Models were developed using the training cohort (n = 469) and then applied to the validation cohort (n = 156).
resultsOf the 625 patients included, 513 patients (82%) demonstrated improvement in CI-only CNC word recognition scores at 12-months postimplantation compared with their preimplantation scores. Early improvement was strongly associated with long-term outcomes. Patients were more likely to improve by 12 months if they improved by 1 month (odds ratio = 45.72) or 3 months (odds ratio = 22.22) postimplantation. Model performances were similar across the training and validation cohorts. In the validation cohort, the model using 3-months data had the highest predictive accuracy (AUC = 0.92), followed by the 1-month model (AUC = 0.88), and the baseline preoperative model (AUC = 0.77). Based on the regression coefficients obtained from the training cohort, equations can successfully estimate the probability of CNC improvement at 12 months postimplantation for CI patients.
conclusionsModels that included CNC score improvements at 1 month demonstrated good predictive discrimination, while those incorporating 3-months improvements showed excellent discrimination in both the training and validation cohorts. This study highlights the importance of assessing early post-CI speech recognition improvement and proposes a regression model that clinicians can use in real-time to provide early estimates of their patients' probability of 12-months CNC improvement.
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.