Retrospective cohort study demonstrates machine learning models accurately predict cochlear implant candidacy, highlighting utility for personalized decision-making in borderline hearing loss cases.
Objective To develop and validate a machine learning ( ML )‐based screening tool for cochlear implant ( CI ) candidacy that generates personalized probability scores and supports individualized, patient‐centered counseling. Methods Institutional CI registry retrospective cohort study and HERMES database (1878 patients, 3756 ears). Supervised ML classification models predicted CI candidacy: (1) ear‐specific aided CNC word score < 50%, and (2) bilateral best‐aided AzBio sentence scores < 60%. Three ML models (logistic regression, random forest, XGBoost) were benchmarked against the 60/60 rule (PTA ≥ 60 dB; WRS ≤ 60%) per TRIPOD‐AI guidelines. Input features included audiometric thresholds, word recognition scores, age. Data were split 80/20, hyperparameter tuning via nested 10‐fold cross‐validation. Performance metrics included sensitivity, specificity, AUROC, F1 score, and calibration curves. SMOTE was applied to evaluate class imbalance effects. A web‐based platform was deployed for user‐friendly access. Results For CNC < 50%, the 60/60 rule achieved a higher F1 score (0.83 vs. 0.77–0.79), but ML models demonstrated higher sensitivity (0.80–0.84 vs. 0.77) and excellent AUROC (0.88–0.89). For AzBio < 60%, ML models outperformed the 60/60 rule in F1 score (0.79–0.80 vs. 0.71), precision (0.77–0.78 vs. 0.68), and specificity (0.86–0.87 vs. 0.76), with AUROC 0.89–0.90. Calibration analysis confirmed well‐calibrated, clinically interpretable probability distributions. SMOTE‐balanced datasets did not alter performance. Conclusion Although ML models are not dramatically superior to the 60/60 rule, they offer complementary value by identifying candidates who might otherwise be missed and providing individualized probability scores for both CNC and AzBio CI candidacy criteria. These outputs enable more personalized counseling and shared decision‐making, particularly for patients in the borderline “gray zone”. Level of Evidence 3
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shew et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: