ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluation of S-Value in relation to cochlear anatomy in pediatric cochlear implant users.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the S-value in pediatric cochlear implant (CI) patients using high-resolution CT images and examine its correlation with main cochlear parameters and angular insertion depth (AID). A retrospective review of preoperative CT images from pediatric CI recipients with normal cochlear anatomy was conducted at a referral hearing implant center. Cases involving congenital or acquired inner-ear abnormalities were excluded. Two independent reviewers with equivalent expertise used OTOPLAN to measure the main cochlear parameters, and the interrater reliability study revealed good agreement. S-values (the straight section of the cochlear basal turn) were measured and examined, and their correlation to electrode insertion angles and cochlear parameters (A- and B-values) was evaluated. The average cochlear duct length (CDL) of the included patients was 36.14 ± 0.26 mm, with an average S-value of 7.06 ± 0.40 mm, insertion angle of 598.20° ± 48.72°, and cochlear coverage of 77.49% ± 0.57. A statistically significant relationship was found between A- and the S-values (r = 0.65, p = 0.004). However, the B-value showed a moderate, non-significant correlation with the S-value (r = 0.43). Furthermore, a consistent negative, but not statistically significant, association was found between the S-value and the angular insertion depths of all electrode contacts (r = - 0.28 to - 0.30). The S-value is a dependable anatomical parameter that correlates positively with the A-value. The evaluated lateral-wall array showed consistent insertion depths among patients with similar CDL, even when S-values differed. Further studies are needed to investigate the impact of greater variability in S-values on clinical outcomes and electrode-array position among CI users.
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.