康复期间远程与门诊人工耳蜗编程的比较：临床结局与患者观点

数据集获取（Figshare）

• 源站标题：Remote versus in-clinic cochlear implant programming during rehabilitation: clinical outcomes and patient perspectives
• DOI：10.6084/m9.figshare.31267306.v1
• 发布日期：2026-02-05
• 文件数：4 个
• 文件总体积：83.47 KB
• 源站页面：https://tandf.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Remote_versus_in-clinic_cochlear_implant_programming_during_rehabilitation_clinical_outcomes_and_patient_perspectives/31267306

命令行下载

curl -L -o "iidt_a_2626470_sm6441.xlsx" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/61665355"
curl -L -o "iidt_a_2626470_sm6440.docx" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/61665358"
curl -L -o "iidt_a_2626470_sm6439.xlsx" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/61665361"
curl -L -o "iidt_a_2626470_sm6438.docx" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/61665364"

文件清单

• iidt_a_2626470_sm6441.xlsx（13.82 KB）
• iidt_a_2626470_sm6440.docx（27.48 KB）
• iidt_a_2626470_sm6439.xlsx（14.01 KB）
• iidt_a_2626470_sm6438.docx（28.16 KB）

文件总体积 83.47 KB（源站 API 实测）。

数据加载示例（图像类）

from PIL import Image
import glob, os

files = (glob.glob(os.path.join(path, "**", "*.png"), recursive=True)
       + glob.glob(os.path.join(path, "**", "*.jpg"), recursive=True)
       + glob.glob(os.path.join(path, "**", "*.tif"), recursive=True))
print("图像文件数:", len(files))
img = Image.open(files[0]); print("尺寸/模式:", img.size, img.mode)

# torchvision Dataset 方式:
# from torchvision import datasets
# ds = datasets.ImageFolder(path)  # 要求 子目录=类别

目录组织与标注格式以源站说明和下载后实际文件为准。

数据说明

Increasing cochlear implant (CI) demand due to broader candidacy and an ageing population challenges in-clinic rehabilitation. Remote programming offers a promising alternative to improve accessibility. This study evaluates its non-inferiority and optimal timing during rehabilitation.
Forty-three postlingually deafened adults were divided into three groups: standard in-clinic fitting (n = 21), remote fitting during the second session (n = 12), and remote fitting during the third session (n = 10). Auditory outcomes at the fourth session were assessed using speech perception phoneme score at 65 dB SPL (primary outcome measure), free-field tone audiometry and programming parameters (M- and T-levels). Patient experiences with remote programming were evaluated via a dedicated questionnaire. Non-inferiority of remote versus in-clinic fitting was assessed.
Speech perception phoneme score at 65 dB SPL was 73% (SD = 11) in the remote group and 76% (SD = 11) in the in-clinic group, with a mean difference of −3% (95% CI: −9.4 to 3.9), meeting the pre-specified non-inferiority margin. Free-field tone audiometry thresholds were not significantly different (remote: 24 ± 5 dB HL; in-clinic: 25 ± 5 dB HL). Patients without remote experience expressed more negative perceptions about the concept, whereas those with firsthand experience reported high satisfaction, ease of use, and willingness to continue remote sessions.
Replacing one rehabilitation appointment with a remote fitting is non-inferior to standard in-clinic fitting for speech perception outcomes. Most patients reported high satisfaction, supporting its feasibility and accessibility.

Remote fitting sessions can reduce travel burden and improve accessibility for patients with mobility or logistical challenges.
One in-clinic rehabilitation appointment can be replaced with a remote cochlear implant fitting without compromising speech perception outcomes.
Combining in-clinic and remote sessions in a hybrid rehabilitation model may increase efficiency and allow more patient-centered care.

Remote fitting sessions can reduce travel burden and improve accessibility for patients with mobility or logistical challenges.
O

许可

CC BY 4.0

引用

学术使用请引用 DOI 10.6084/m9.figshare.31267306.v1（source: https://tandf.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Remote_versus_in-clinic_cochlear_implant_programming_during_rehabilitation_clinical_outcomes_and_patient_perspectives/31267306）。