Predicting Postoperative Cochlear Implant Performance Using Supervised Machine Learning.
Journal
Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology
ISSN: 1537-4505
Titre abrégé: Otol Neurotol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100961504
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
20
6
2020
medline:
15
4
2021
entrez:
20
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To predict postoperative cochlear implant performance with heterogeneous text and numerical variables using supervised machine learning techniques. A supervised machine learning approach comprising neural networks and decision tree-based ensemble algorithms were used to predict 1-year postoperative cochlear implant performance based on retrospective data. Tertiary referral center. One thousand six hundred four adults who received one cochlear implant from 1989 to 2019. Two hundred eighty two text and numerical objective demographic, audiometric, and patient-reported outcome survey instrument variables were included. Outcomes for postoperative cochlear implant performance were discrete Hearing in Noise Test (HINT; %) performance and binned HINT performance classification ("High," "Mid," and "Low" performers). Algorithm performance was assessed using hold-out validation datasets and were compared using root mean square error (RMSE) in the units of the target variable and classification accuracy. The neural network 1-year HINT prediction RMSE and classification accuracy were 0.57 and 95.4%, respectively, with only numerical variable inputs. Using both text and numerical variables, neural networks predicted postoperative HINT with a RMSE of 25.0%, and classification accuracy of 73.3%. When applied to numerical variables only, the XGBoost algorithm produced a 1-year HINT score prediction performance RMSE of 25.3%. We identified over 20 influential variables including preoperative sentence-test performance, age at surgery, as well as specific tinnitus handicap inventory (THI), Short Form 36 (SF-36), and health utilities index (HUI) question responses as the highest influencers of postoperative HINT. Our results suggest that supervised machine learning can predict postoperative cochlear implant performance and identify preoperative factors that significantly influence that performance. These algorithms can help improve the understanding of the diverse factors that impact functional performance from heterogeneous data sources.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32558750
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002710
pii: 00129492-202009000-00016
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1013-e1023Références
Crowson MG, Ranisau J, Eskander A, et al. A contemporary review of machine learning in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. Laryngoscope 2020; 30:45–51.
Bur AM, Shew M, New J. Artificial intelligence for the Otolaryngologist: a State of the Art Review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019; 160:603–611.
Damen GWJA, Beynon AJ, Krabbe PFM, Mulder JJS, Mylanus EAM. Cochlear implantation and quality of life in postlingually deaf adults: long-term follow-up. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007; 136:597–604.
Todt I, Basta D, Ernst A. Does the surgical approach in cochlear implantation influence the occurrence of postoperative vertigo? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008; 138:8–12.
Quaranta N, Fernandez-Vega S, D’elia C, Filipo R, Quaranta A. The effect of unilateral multichannel cochlear implant on bilaterally perceived tinnitus. Acta Otolaryngol 2008; 128:159–163.
Mo B, Lindbaek M, Harris S. Cochlear implants and quality of life: a prospective study. Ear Hear 2005; 26:186–194.
Gaylor JM, Raman G, Chung M, et al. Cochlear implantation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013; 139:265–272.
Enticott JC, Tari S, Koh SM, Dowell RC, O’Leary SJ. Cochlear implant and vestibular function. Otol Neurotol 2006; 27:824–830.
Di Nardo W, Cantore I, Cianfrone F, Melillo P, Scorpecci A, Paludetti G. Tinnitus modifications after cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 264:1145–1149.
Blamey P, Artieres F, Başkent D, et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients. Audiol Neurootol 2013; 18:36–47.
Leung J, Wang N-Y, Yeagle JD, et al. Predictive models for cochlear implantation in elderly candidates. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005; 131:1049–1054.
Lundin K, Näsvall A, Köbler S, Linde G, Rask-Andersen H. Cochlear implantation in the elderly. Cochlear Implants Int 2013; 14:92–97.
van Dijk JE, van Olphen AF, Langereis MC, Mens LH, Brokx JP, Smoorenburg GF. Predictors of cochlear implant performance. Audiology 1999; 38:109–116.
Bodmer D, Shipp DB, Ostroff JM, et al. A comparison of postcochlear implantation speech scores in an adult population. Laryngoscope 2007; 117:1408–1411.
Friedland DR, Venick HS, Niparko JK. Choice of ear for cochlear implantation: the effect of history and residual hearing on predicted postoperative performance. Otol Neurotol 2003; 24:582–589.
Gantz BJ, Woodworth GG, Knutson JF, Abbas PJ, Tyler RS. Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multichannel cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1993; 102:909–916.
Gomaa NA, Rubinstein JT, Lowder MW, Tyler RS, Gantz BJ. Residual speech perception and cochlear implant performance in postlingually deafened adults. Ear Hear 2003; 24:539–544.
Kiefer J, von Ilberg C, Reimer B, et al. Results of cochlear implantation in patients with severe to profound hearing loss--implications for patient selection. Audiology 1998; 37:382–395.
Lazard DS, Vincent C, Venail F, et al. Pre-, per- and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: a new conceptual model over time. PLoS ONE 2012; 7:e48739.
Plant K, McDermott H, van Hoesel R, Dawson P, Cowan R. Factors predicting postoperative unilateral and bilateral speech recognition in adult cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing. Ear Hear 2016; 37:153–163.
Demajumdar R, Stoddart R, Donaldson I, Proops DW. Tinnitus, cochlear implants and how they affect patients. J Laryngol Otol Suppl 1999; 24:24–26.
Pierzycki RH, Corner C, Fielden CA, Kitterick PT. Effects of tinnitus on cochlear implant programming. Trends Hear 2019; 23:2331216519836624.
Távora-Vieira D, Marino R, Krishnaswamy J, Kuthbutheen J, Rajan GP. Cochlear implantation for unilateral deafness with and without tinnitus: a case series. Laryngoscope 2013; 123:1251–1255.
Dorman MF, Loizou PC, Rainey D. Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 102 (5 pt 1):2993–2996.
Wanna GB, Noble JH, Carlson ML, et al. Impact of electrode design and surgical approach on scalar location and cochlear implant outcomes. Laryngoscope 2014; 124: (suppl 6): S1–S7.
Gstoettner W, Kiefer J, Baumgartner W-D, Pok S, Peters S, Adunka O. Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation. Acta Otolaryngol 2004; 124:348–352.
Gstoettner W, Helbig S, Settevendemie C, Baumann U, Wagenblast J, Arnoldner C. A new electrode for residual hearing preservation in cochlear implantation: first clinical results. Acta Otolaryngol 2009; 129:372–379.
Finley CC, Holden TA, Holden LK, et al. Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2008; 29:920–928.
Puram SV, Roberts DS, Niesten MEF, Dilger AE, Lee DJ. Cochlear implant outcomes in patients with superior canal dehiscence. Cochlear Implants Int 2015; 16:213–221.
Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP, Hug GA. Test-retest reliability of the hearing handicap inventory for adults. Ear Hear 1991; 12:355–357.
Newman CW, Jacobson GP, Spitzer JB. Development of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996; 122:143–148.
Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30:473–483.
Owens E, Raggio M. Performance inventory for profound and severe loss (PIPSL). J Speech Hear Disord 1988; 53:42–56.
Kuk FK, Tyler RS, Russell D, Jordan H. The psychometric properties of a tinnitus handicap questionnaire. Ear Hear 1990; 11:434–445.
Robinson K, Gatehouse S, Browning GG. Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996; 105:415–422.
Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care 2002; 40:113–128.
Gatehouse S, Noble W. The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2004; 43:85–99.
Jacobson GP, Newman CW. The development of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990; 116:424–427.
Massa ST, Ruckenstein MJ. Comparing the performance plateau in adult cochlear implant patients using HINT and AzBio. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35:598–604.
Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM, et al. Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 2012; 33:112–117.
Lundberg S, Lee S-I. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions; 2017. Available at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.07874v2. Accessed October 15, 2019.
Crowson MG, Semenov YR, Tucci DL, Niparko JK. Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants: a narrative review. Audiol Neurootol 2017; 22:236–258.
Francis HW, Chee N, Yeagle J, Cheng A, Niparko JK. Impact of cochlear implants on the functional health status of older adults. Laryngoscope 2002; 112 (8 pt 1):1482–1488.
Parkin JL, Stewart BE, Dankowski K, Haas LJ. Prognosticating speech performance in multichannel cochlear implant patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1989; 101:314–319.
Rubinstein JT, Parkinson WS, Tyler RS, Gantz BJ. Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. Am J Otol 1999; 20:445–452.
Favaretto N, Marioni G, Brotto D, et al. Cochlear implant outcomes in the elderly: a uni- and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019; 276:3089–3094.
Pasanisi E, Bacciu A, Vincenti V, et al. Speech recognition in elderly cochlear implant recipients. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2003; 28:154–157.
Lally JW, Adams JK, Wilkerson BJ. The use of cochlear implantation in the elderly. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019; 27:387–391.
Shortt SED, Shaw RA, Elliott D, Mackillop WJ. Monitoring trends in waiting periods in Canada for elective surgery: validation of a method using administrative data. Can J Surg 2004; 47:173–178.
Naylor CD. A different view of queues in Ontario. Health Aff (Millwood) 1991; 10:110–128.
Simunovic M, Thériault M-E, Paszat L, et al. Using administrative databases to measure waiting times for patients undergoing major cancer surgery in Ontario, 1993-2000. Can J Surg 2005; 48:137–142.
Geier L, Barker M, Fisher L, Opie J. The effect of long-term deafness on speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult CLARION cochlear implant users. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1999; 177:80–83.
Moberly AC, Castellanos I, Mattingly JK. Neurocognitive factors contributing to cochlear implant candidacy. Otol Neurotol 2018; 39:e1010–e1018.
Han J-H, Lee H-J, Kang H, Oh S-H, Lee DS. Brain plasticity can predict the cochlear implant outcome in adult-onset deafness. Front Hum Neurosci 2019; 13:38.
Shearer AE, Eppsteiner RW, Frees K, et al. Genetic variants in the peripheral auditory system significantly affect adult cochlear implant performance. Hear Res 2017; 348:138–142.