Predicting Acoustic Hearing Preservation Following Cochlear Implant Surgery Using Machine Learning

Abstract

ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to train and test supervised machine‐learning classifiers to predict acoustic hearing preservation after CI using preoperative clinical data.Study DesignRetrospective predictive modeling study of prospectively collected single‐institution CI dataset.MethodsOne hundred and seventy‐five patients from a REDCap database including 761 patients >18 years who underwent CI and had audiometric testing preoperatively and one month after surgery were included. The primary outcome variable was the lowest quartile change in acoustic hearing at one month after CI using various formulae (standard pure tone average, SPTA; low‐frequency PTA, LFPTA). Analysis involved applying multivariate logistic regression to detect statistical associations and training and testing supervised learning classifiers. Classifier performance was assessed with numerous metrics including area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC).ResultsLowest quartile change (indicating hearing preservation) in SPTA was positively associated with a history of meningitis, preoperative LFPTA, and preoperative SPTA. Lowest quartile change in SPTA was negatively associated with sudden hearing loss, noise exposure, aural fullness, and abnormal anatomy. Lowest quartile change in LFPTA was positively associated with preoperative LFPTA. Lowest quartile change in LFPTA was negatively associated with tobacco use. Random forest demonstrated the highest mean classification performance on the validation dataset when predicting each of the outcome variables.ConclusionsMachine learning demonstrated utility for predicting preservation of residual acoustic hearing in patients undergoing CI surgery, and the detected associations facilitated the interpretation of our machine‐learning models. The models and statistical associations together may be used to facilitate improvements in shared clinical decision‐making and patient outcomes.Level of Evidence3 Laryngoscope, 134:926–936, 2024