The SIFEM project achieved its objectives of developing a 3D multi-scale validated model of the inner ear that includes micromechanical, anatomical, and fluid dynamics details. This model is used to better understand hearing loss and cochlear disorders. The project involved 10 academic and industry partners across Europe. In year 3, all deliverables were submitted on time and milestones achieved. The project made significant scientific and technical progress, including further developing open source FEM tools, multi-scale inner ear models, and integrating these within a semantic infostructure platform. Validation activities showed the models and tools achieved acceptable but not excellent results, requiring further work post-project. Recommendations included improving the system score and demonstrating the solution to

1. TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT
Information and Communication Technologies
ICT
Project acronym: SIFEM
Project title: [Semantic Infostructure interlinking an open source Finite Element tool
and libraries with a model repository for the multi-scale Modelling and 3d visualization of the
inner-ear]
Grant agreement number: [600933]
Funding scheme: [FP7-ICT-2011-9 (STREP)]
Project starting date: [01/02/2013]
Project duration: [36] months
Coordinator: [Ratnesh Sahay, National University of Ireland, Galway]
Project web site: [http://www.sifem-project.eu]
Period covered by the report: Period No. [Year 3], from [3 February, 2015] to [31
January, 2016]
Place of review meeting: [Brussels, Belgium]
Date of review meeting: [10 March, 2016]
Expert: Dr. Pedro Martín Lerones, CARTIF (Spain)
Dr. José Antonio López-Escamez, GENYO (Spain)
Prof. Alain Venot, PARIS 13 UNIVERSITY (France)
Project officer: Mr. Eduardo González Otero
Consolidated report X
Ref. Ares(2016)1676006 - 08/04/2016

2. 2
1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT
a. Executive summary
Please give your overall assessment of the project, commenting on the following:
• main scientific/technological achievements of the project
• quality of the results
• attainment of the objectives and milestones for the period
• adherence to the workplan, any deviations (whether justified) and remedies (whether acceptable)
• take-up of the recommendations from the previous review (if applicable)
• contribution to the state of the art
• use of resources
• impact
The final outcome of SIFEM is the development of a functional, 3D, multi-scale and validated
inner-ear model that includes details of the micromechanics, cochlea geometry, supporting
structures, surrounding fluid environment and vibration patterns. This (is/will be) used to better
identify the mechanisms that are responsible for the highly sensitive and dynamic properties of
hearing loss and also to complete the description of alterations that are connected to diverse
cochlear disorders.
The SIFEM Consortium consists of 10 partners from academia (NUIG-DERI, LiU, UoA, TUM,
and RTV), research institutes (ICCS, ISVR, and UCL-EI) and business (BioIRC,
INTRASOFT). This Consortium has continued demonstrating a strong adherence and
commitment to the workplan. During year 3 of the project, the scientific achievements have
been reached according to the DoW. All the deliverables have been sent in time. The quality of
the results is good or excellent depending on the deliverables. The proposed milestones have
been reached for the third year period and the objectives of the project have been fully reached.
As it was recommended by reviewers in year 1 and year 2, efforts have been efficiently put by
the consortium in order to get a global product at the end of the project. It is observed not only
in the final exploitation plan based on a detailed business analysis, but in the degree of
development attained in the technical work packages: WP3 (Open source FEM tool and 3D
visualization), WP4 (Multi scale modelling of the inner-ear), WP5 (SIFEM rich semantic
infostructure), WP6 (SIFEM infrastructure integration) and WP7 (Validation and models
verification). A detailed risk analysis and management has been complementary performed as
important procedure in a project which deals with medical devices and human diseases.
Anyway, the evaluation carried out on the SIFEM system (internal and external to the
Consortium) results on an average score of 3 out of 5 (acceptable). Therefore an extra effort is
needed to mature the system after the project completion to achieve a marketable product with
guarantees of success.
Women are really involved in the development of the research: two women have attended and
participated into the third evaluation meeting of the project (none in the first and three in the
second).
The contribution to the state of the art has been effective and concretely proven by the total
number of 13 journal publications and 65 conference posters / presentations / special lectures by
the end of January 2016. Moreover, 4 best awards and 6 invited talks reflect the high quality of
the SIFEM results from the scientifically point of view. Three events were held for assessing the
marketability of the SIFEM solution as well as promoting it to potential customers.

3. 3
All planned resources have been efficiently used since the beginning of SIFEM (101.25% in
year 3).
b. Recommendations concerning the period under review
Please give your recommendations on the acceptance or rejection of resources, work done and
required corrective actions – e.g., resubmission of reports or deliverables, further justifications, etc.
The deliverables have been submitted very close to the year 3 on-site review meeting date,
aspect that does not favour a deep analysis. None of them needs to be resubmitted.
As appropriate to a predominantly scientific project in the final phase (main results are fully
achieved), the number of high impact factor publications in journals has increased, but not so
much in conferences and other forums (as expected).
An active searching for funding is recommended to achieve a successful exploitation of the
SIFEM platform (final product of the project) as the exploitation plan presented for M36.
The balanced composition of women and men shown in the project (bringing equality to the
current male-dominated workplace in the RTD and Clinical fields) is adequately maintained:
40% of the consortium members have employed female members working on the project. It
would be good to keep this percentage for the further exploitation of the SIFEM results and
related research.
c. Recommendations concerning future work
Please give your recommendations – e.g., overall modifications, corrective actions at WP level, re-
tuning of the objectives to optimise the impact or to keep up with the state of the art, better use of
resources, re-focusing, etc. Where appropriate, indicate the timescale for implementation.
Although the project ends this year, given the quality of the technical results, the following
recommendations are made for further exploitation:
1. After analysing the results of the evaluation of the SIFEM infostructure (3 out of 5 score -in
average-), the system would need improvements to ensure its use and marketing after the
project conclusion.
There should be a plan indicating the necessary partners, cost and estimated time to do so.
Reaching a score 4 of 5 (at least) is required.
2. Demonstrations on the SIFEM services/products/models (basically: FEM tool and 3D
visualization; Multi-scale models of the inner-head; Integrated SIFEM infrastructure) are
encouraged to really achieve a marketable product beyond the completion of the project.
This is favoured by the fact that the quantification of the necessary investment for the use of
SIFEM system by end users, in addition to the description of skills required for running it
(or partial usable/exploitable results), is already described in D1.3.2.
3. The financial aspects and goals for the funding of the exploitation activities will be very
important to be consistent with the final exploitation plan presented in D1.3.2.

4. 4
INTRASOFT partner, as leading European IT solution and services group, could have a
very active role on this issue.
Looking for crow-funding or sponsorship by companies regarding the potential customers
indicated in section 3.1 of D1.3.2 is just another indication: COCHLEAR, MEDEL or
Advance BIONICS; major hearing aids companies (WIDEX, SIEMENS, OTICON,
PHONAX), hearing aid dealers (AMPLIFON, GAES), but also pharmaceutical companies
interested in the delivery of drugs for the cochlea.
d. Assessment
Excellent progress (the project has fully achieved its objectives and technical goals
for the period and has even exceeded expectations).
X Good progress (the project has achieved most of its objectives and technical goals
for the period with relatively minor deviations).
Acceptable progress (the project has achieved some of its objectives; however,
corrective action will be required).
Unsatisfactory progress (the project has failed to achieve key objectives and/or is not
at all on schedule).
2. OBJECTIVES and WORKPLAN
a. Progress towards project objectives
Assess to what extent the objectives of the project for the period have been achieved. In particular,
please indicate if the project as a whole has been making satisfactory progress in relation to the
Description of Work (Annex I to the grant agreement) and comment on the interaction between the
work packages and the level of integration demonstrated.
The objectives of SIFEM have been achieved for year 3 and, therefore, for the entire project. A
very good progress can be seen tracking the work done in each WP. Furthermore, the
interaction between the technical work packages (WP3 to WP7) and the level of integration
demonstrated among them have been progressively strengthened in years 2 and 3.
The achievements met in year 3 in implementing the project objectives are detailed in the next
section: Progress in individual WPs.
b. Progress in individual work packages
For each work package (WP), assess the progress in relation to the Description of Work (Annex I of
the grant agreement). Please also report and comment on any delays, reasons for them and any
remedial action taken. Specify the work packages concerned.
The Consortium has provided deliverables to demonstrate the progress on all WP (except WP2-
closed in year 1-). The project activities on this third period are indicated in D1.1.5: “Interim
progress report M30”, D1.1.6: “Interim progress report M36” and D1.5: “Final report”.

5. 5
WP1: Project Management, Dissemination and Exploitation
Regarding to the administrative and resources management the monthly technical meetings,
checking of deliverables quality and their submissions, dissemination events, and the project
milestones have been well coordinated.
About scientific and technical managing, three activities are remarkable: (1) contacting
INTRASOFT for integration tasks; (2) collaborating with BIOIRC for improving the models and
providing them in time for integration; (3) coordinating the tasks related to the specific models
which have been integrated into the platform.
The quality assurance (QA) allowed monitoring the SIFEM progress for ensuring the coherent
alignment of the conducted work with the project objectives. From the technical point of view,
this QA was governed by Task 6.5, concentrated on the quality of the produced documentations
and the software outcomes. The proper handlings of the project scope (taking into account the
reviewer’s recommendations), the scheduling of activities, the utilization of resources, and the
risk analysis, have been demonstrated to avoid experiencing any major deviations.
During the year 3 the consortium defined the necessary investment required for the use of the
SIFEM system by end-users, identifying the skills required for running it so as to better
positioning SIFEM in the market. The system has been practically demonstrated to potential
customers during workshops and the market analysis was completed through quantification
where possible. The IPR scheme has been defined along with a template of the Joint Ownership
Agreement which could form the basis for future exploitation of SIFEM by an excellent business
plan.
The total number of 13 journal publications and 65 actions in conferences achieved by the end of
February 2016, among which there are 4 best awards and 6 invited talks, reflects the high quality
of the SIFEM scientific results. Dissemination tools such as SIFEM website, social networks
and media are operating to disseminate the SIFEM outcomes even further this project
completion.
WP2: Design of the SIFEM System
The WP2 finished at the first reporting period, so no deliverables were scheduled since year 2. In
spite of this, the outcomes of WP2 fed continuously the research activities of WP3 and WP4, as
well as the development activities of WP5 and WP6. The acquired images and dataset (initiated
during Task 2.3: “Review of geometric, mechanical and vibration data and models for the inner
ear”) were updated with new histological images in year 2.
WP3: Open Source Finite Element Modelling Tool and 3D visualization
This WP is related to the development of the open source tools for FEM and 3D visualization. A
PAK-CAD application was developed to allow the user can choose 7 different cochlea models.
Parameters of the selected cochlea model are geometrical parameters, material properties,
prescribed mesh division, boundary conditions and applied loads.
Cochlea box (rectangular) model can be calculated with and without longitudinal coupling (type
of analysis: modal). Tapered box cochlea model can be used for air conduction and bone
conduction simulation.

6. 6
The PAK-CAD application also includes loading of realistic geometry: the cochlea geometry
reconstruction and the head model were updated based on micro-CT and histological images.
The electromechanics coupling using the model developed by ISVR with the macromechanics
model is developed. Boundary conditions from electrostatic micromechanics voltage model are
prescribed. The head meshing tool which imports STL files is created as well.
The models from PAK-CAD application are tested and compared with ANSYS commercial
software. Finally, the visualization tool is updated by deploying the algorithms from MATLAB
to C++.
WP4: Multi-Scale Modelling of the Inner-Ear
The coupled response of the cochlea is predicted using the Finite Element (FE) models
developed in the SIFEM project. These FE models have not only been implemented in the PAK
package (open source), but also implemented in MATLAB and ANSYS for comparison.
Individual FE models of the fluid coupling and the micromechanics were also developed.
Simulation results were compared with analytic solution for the fluid coupling and with animal
experiment for the cochlear micromechanics. The coupled responses were calculated using
several types of SIFEM models including uniform/tapered box model, micromechanical model
as well as coiled cochlear model.
The whole head human finite element model for bone conduction transmission has been
developed as well, based on CT and cryosectional images from the Visible Human Project
[https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/visible/visible_gallery.html]. The developed finite element
model has also been validated with data from cadaver heads and live humans.
WP5: SIFEM Rich Semantic Infostructure
Multi‐layered ontologies for the integrated SIFEM multiscale conceptual model has been
developed within WP5 in addition to the 3 main software components of the SIFEM
infostructure, facilitating researchers in collaborating, sharing data, creating common multi‐scale
models and conducting joint research:
(1) The Linked Knowledge Repository, which provides the mechanisms and tools required for
the identification of interoperable models, interconnection of clinical, biological data, and
provenance data.
(2) The Intelligent Knowledge Services, which provides an interface to the querying and
processing of clinical, biological, and simulation research data.
(3) The Semantic Infostructure Utilities, that provides researchers with advanced capabilities
with regard to the management and version control of the inner-ear related models and

7. 7
multi‐scale models, the alignment and archiving of the available data provided by the
researchers, and the data generated by the simulations execution.
All these components took part on the integration phase performed in the WP6.
WP6: SIFEM Infrastructure Integration
The integration of the Semantic Infostructure and the PAK solver has been successfully
completed. Task 6.2 was active for the M18 to M30 period with the primarily objective of
platform integration. It provided a layer of integration between the components and user
interfaces that were developed in Tasks 5.2 and Tasks 5.3 and also the solver. The latest version
of the solver includes the support of new models such as the box, coiled cochlear, cochlea
tapered model and the head model.
The resulting SIFEM platform can run in any type of operating system, either on a single
computer or on a distributed set of computer (3 servers).
WP7: Validation, Model Verification and SIFEM Infostructure Evaluation
WP7 is a work package of capital importance in year 3. It is focused on the verification and
validation of the cochlear models developed during the life cycle, as well as the evaluation of the
SIFEM tools, services and integrated infostructure.
The following technical tasks were performed by the consortium to get the evaluation version of
the SIFEM system: air conduction validation; bone conduction validation (dry skull model);
cross-validation between PAK and other FE commercial software (MATLAB, ANSYS and
COMSOL); verification of the 3D reconstruction of the Cochlea; 2D slide model validation;
electrical coupling; validation of the inner-ear model; use of the psychoacoustic tuning curves as
a validation tool; clinical validation by incorporation pathological features.
Two different groups of experts participated in the evaluation of the SIFEM system, enhancing
the approval from researchers and VPH community. Initially, biomedical experts of the SIFEM
consortium (i.e: ISVR, UCL-EI, LiU, RTV and ICCS) assessed the efficiency and effectiveness
of the individual SIFEM open source tools and services. Furthermore, the consortium domain
experts evaluated the user-friendliness of the unified SIFEM Semantic Infostructure, while UoA
and ICCS evaluated the platform from the clinical point of view. Finally, the new knowledge
that they may have acquired through the utilization of the SIFEM FEM tools, as well as the
semantic rules representing the clinical knowledge, were assessed.
Furthermore, a group from external reviewers was formed, including biomedical experts and
researchers as well as individuals interested in the FE multi-scale modelling of the inner-ear
(representing research institutes and universities) from the enlarged Europe and Worldwide.
The evaluation plan for the SIFEM platform is adequate and properly defined (see Figure 1 of
D1.1.6: “Periodic progress report M36” and D7.3: “User’s evaluation report”). Considering a 1
to 5 scale, the majority of the participants (50 questionnaires completed in total) are in the
middle of the range as 39% of the MDs gave a 3 score. 9% of the participants replied that they

8. 8
would involve right away with the usage of the platform. Almost half of the respondents have a
Doctoral degree with over 10 years of experience.
65% of the respondents found it acceptably complex giving from 1 up to 3 in the scale. The
engineers have responded that they would need the assistance of a technical person in order to be
able to use the platform. Almost half of them have selected 1 and 2 in the scale. Moreover the
most of them are very experienced users with more than 10 years of experience. One third of
engineers believe that the system is far from well integrated.
The users’ experience in regards with the system usage is averagely rated. Approximately half of
the respondents give a 3, the majority of them having a Bachelor’s or a Doctoral degree. Finally,
most of the participants feel confident using the system.

9. c. Milestones and deliverables
Indicate whether the planned milestones and deliverables have been achieved for the reporting period (please give more detailed comments first and then fill in
the summary table below).
The planned milestones have been achieved for year 3, as indicated in the D1.1.6: “Final progress report M36” / D1.5: “Final report” (see Table 1).
Table 1: Status of Milestones
Milestone No. Milestone Name WP Lead beneficiary Delivery date Achieved
(Yes/No)
MS12 Availability of the coupled multi-
scale inner-ear model
WP3
WP4
BioIRC M27 Yes
MS13 Availability of semantic
infostructure, knowledge services
and clinical knowledge
documentation
WP5 NUIG M27 Yes
MS14 Models validation results WP7 ICCS M33 Yes
MS15 Availability of the SIFEM
infostructure
WP3
WP4
WP5
WP6
INTRASOFT M30 Yes
MS16 Availability of the SIFEM
infostructure (Final)
WP3
WP4
WP5
WP6
INTRASOFT M36 Yes
Besides, the Table 2 evaluates the deliverables of year 3.
Table 2: Evaluation of Deliverables
Del.
No
Deliverable title WP
No.
Lead
Partner
Delivery
Date
Status
(Approved/Rejected)
Remarks
WP1: Project management, Dissemination and Exploitation
D1.1.5 Interim progress report M30 WP1 NUIG-DERI M30 Approved Good. Describes the
development of the

10. 10
project from M24 to
M30. Indications to
know who leads and
participates in each
specific task would be
appreciated.
There is no paging and
Figure 11 is not clear.
No allocation of
resources and efforts are
indicated.
D1.1.6 Interim progress report M36 WP1 NUIG-DERI M36 Approved Good. Allocation of
resources and efforts are
given for M25-M36
period and for the whole
project. Indications to
know who leads and
participates in each
specific task would be
appreciated. Evaluation
plan for the SIFEM
platform is well
defined and performed.
It should have been
indicated the criteria for
the selection of external
experts for the
evaluation of the SIFEM
system (WP7
description).
There is no paging.
Please check the header
of the document.
D1.3.2 Exploitation plan M36 WP1 INTRASOFT M36 Approved Excellent. Provides a
sound business plan and
exploitation scenarios

11. 11
based on a detailed
market and SWOT
analysis on SIFEM
outputs. All options
regarding the
exploitable results and
outputs have been
analysed and
categorized (main
-services
/products/models- and
secondary). Key success
factors are defined. The
innovative elements of
the SIFEM solution and
the identification of
potential users /
customers have been
properly illustrated.
D1.3.2
Apdix.
Joint ownership agreement
(Template)
WP1 INTRASOFT M36 Approved Fair. It set out the
contractors’ exploitation
rights for the SIFEM
Platform (free and full
versions). The
exploitation shall be
done by BioIRC (SME)
as proprietary of the
tools that support the
full version. There is no
indication about the
"return of fees" policy to
the customers in case of
breaching of service for
the full edition
throughout the 60
months (5 years) of

12. 12
agreement. Possible
renewals of this
agreement are not
indicated (Article 9?).
D1.4.3 Updated dissemination plans WP1 ISVR M36 Approved Good. This report
updates the
dissemination plans
summarizing all
dissemination activities,
publications and tools
used by the consortium
throughout the whole
project. Images should
be legible or full page
displayed.
D1.5 Final report WP1 NUIG-DERI M36 Approved Good. The work
progresses made in
SIFEM project between
months M1 to M36 are
described (technical and
management).
Indications to know who
leads and participates in
each specific task would
be appreciated.
A list of abbreviations
should be desirable.
There is no paging.
WP2: Design of the SIFEM system
- NA- - - - - -
WP3: Open Source Finite Element Modelling Tool and 3D Visualization
D3.3 Open source 3D visualization tool WP3 ICCS M27 Approved Good. Describes the
design and
implementation of the
open source 3D
visualization tool. The

13. 13
technologies used to
implement the tool, the
architecture followed,
the Graphical User
Interface (GUI), and the
functionality to the user
are well indicated. In
fact, two different tools
were developed: (i) the
Head 3D visualization
tool for reconstruction
and visualization of
head which exploits CT
images; and (ii) the
Cochlea 3D
visualization tool which
exploits histological
images.
Please check the
reference sources on the
text.
WP4: Multi-Scale modelling of the Inner-Ear
D4.4 Inner hear model for bone conduction WP4 LiU M27 Approved Excellent. Reports the
development of a model
of the inner ear
simulated with bone
conduction (BC) sound.
The document also
reports on the excitation
of the inner ear model
(that can be defined
specifically based on the
boundary or imported
from a whole head
model for BC
simulation). The

14. 14
boundary motion
provides the excitation
of the inner ear
structure. The specific
predictions of BC sound
excitation are possible
using micro-CT data of
the patient’s inner ear.
D4.5 FE model of the cochlea WP4 ISVR M27 Approved Excellent. The Finite
Element Method (FEM)
is used to model
cochlear
micromechanics based
on realistic geometry
reconstructed from
human cochlea
histological images.
This work provides
some predictions of the
detailed motions within
the organ of Corti, at
relatively low
computational cost by
using a linear
combination of cochlear
responses to different
types of excitation.
The FE models built in
ANSYS commercial sw
are passed to BIOIRC to
be coded using the open
source package PAK
and verifying the results
from the models built in
PAK.
D4.6 Coupled multi-scale inner ear model WP4 ISVR M27 Approved Excellent. This

15. 15
document reports
models of the inner ear
at different dimension
scales (from cm down
to µm), and interfaces
between different
physics (such as fluid-
structure coupling and
electrical coupling) and
also the interface
between different scales
(such as the cochlea and
the head). Results are
predicted using
commercial software,
which helps verifying
those calculated using
open source FE solver
PAK in WP3.
WP5: SIFEM Rich Semantic Infostructure
D5.3.2 Semantic infostructure and
knowledge services
WP5 NUIG-DERI M27 Approved Good. Provides the
description of the
second (final) version of
the SIFEM semantic
infostructure
components, the way
that these components
are configured, as well
as the knowledge
services components.
Consideration was also
given to provenance
models that will
associate clinical
knowledge with new
and existing data.

16. 16
D5.4.2 Clinical knowledge documentation
report
WP5 NUIG / ICCS M27 Approved Good. The aim is to
gather, describe and
update the terms from
different domains
(clinical, modelling,
anatomy of ear, and ear
diseases) that serve as a
common vocabulary
among disciplines
according to the work
progress. The
vocabulary presented
feeds the SIFEM
conceptual model,
where the links among
terms will be described
(adding the object and
data properties) and the
respective ontology will
be implemented. A rule
editor is applied for data
validation.
WP6: SIFEM Infraestructure Integration
D6.2.2 Integrated SIFEM Infrastructure WP6 INTRASOFT M30 Approved Excellent. Provides the
latest results of the
testing process and
software quality
analysis, as well as the
description of the VPH
bridge (for aligning
SIFEM with other VPH
related projects). The
testing tools and results
(by unit and integrated -
both showing good
state-) are presented and

17. 17
explained. The software
analysis and the quality
metrics for this second
version of the integrated
platform are given as
well (overall quality of
the code has increased).
The components listing
and the list of changes
are detailed.
D6.4.2 Risk Management Report WP6 ICCS M30 Approved Excellent. This
deliverable perfectly
describes and identifies
the technically caused
hazards associated with
each part of the system
(mainly related to sw),
estimating and
evaluating the risks
associated, controlling
these risks, and
monitors the
effectiveness of that
control limitations.
HFMEA1
and RCA2
procedures in addition
to ISO standards are
used for risk analysis
and management. It is
shown that the project
is in the right way to
develop a platform with
1
Healthcare Failure Modes & Effects Analysis.
2
Root Cause Analysis.

18. 18
the lowest risk in terms
of integration,
modelling and operating
of the system.
WP7: Validation, Models Verification and SIFEM Infostructure Evaluation
D7.2 Models Validation and Verification
Results
WP7 UCL-EI M28 Approved Excellent. This
document is focused on
the validation and
verification of models
produced in the
life-cycle of the project,
including: 3D
reconstruction of the
cochlea; air conduction;
bone conduction;
electrical coupling; 2D
slice model; middle hear
FEM. The cross
validations were
performed using
MATLAB, ANSYS and
COMSOL. Clinical
validation was also
made (tympanosclerosis
and otosclerosis;
Meniere’s disease is still
challenging). Cochlear
implantation was
simulated by locally
increasing the stiffness
of the basilar
membrane.
D7.3 Users’ Evaluation Report WP7 ICCS M36 Approved Good. The
effectiveness, efficiency
and satisfaction of the
SIFEM platform are

19. 19
evaluated in this
document. The
evaluation methodology
is described. Also the
evolution of the
platform as this was
made through the
evaluation (including
the results). A SUS3
questionnaire is used in
the analysis. The final
SIFEM platform as it
has been finalized inside
the project and through
the evaluation
procedure is explained.
Please check the
abstract. The table of
figures is not paginated.
Figure 11 is not clear.
3
System Usability Scale. It is a reliable tool for measuring the usability. Consists of a 10 item questionnaire with five response options for respondents: from strongly agree to
strongly disagree.

20. d. Relevance of objectives
Indicate whether the objectives for the coming periods are (i) still relevant and (ii) still achievable
within the time and resources available to the project. Assess also whether the approach and
methodology continue to be relevant.
The objectives remained relevant throughout the entire project and they were achievable within
the time and resources available during the 36 months lasted.
Although there are no more coming periods, the objectives of the project are relevant even
beyond its termination.
e. For Networks of Excellence (NoEs) only
Assess how the Joint Programme of Activities has been realised for the period and whether all the
planned activities have been satisfactorily completed.
Not applicable.
3. RESOURCES
a. Assessment of the use of resources
Comment on the use of resources, i.e. personnel resources and other major cost items. In particular,
indicate whether the resources have been utilised (i) to achieve the progress and (ii) in a manner
consistent with the principle of economy, efficiency and effectiveness4
. Note that both aspects (i) and
(ii) have to be covered in your answer. The assessment should cover the deployment of resources
overall and by each participant. Are the resources used appropriate and necessary for the work
performed and commensurate with the results achieved? Are the major cost items appropriate? In
your assessment, consider the person months, equipment, subcontracting, consumables and travel.
The current percentage of total resources used by the consortium is currently completed
(23.12% in year 1; 41.55% in year 2; 36.58% in year 3: 101.25% cumulative allocation). It is
acceptable for a three year project, showing that the technical developments were mainly made
during the year 2 but they continued to be important until their validation in the year 3 (as
expected).
The use of resources looks well balanced among different partners and efficiently used to
achieve the work proposed. NUIG has had to increase the person-month allocated to WP5 and
WP6 to achieve adequate technical results, but without causing additional costs (see section 3b
for details).
The ratio of MGT/RTD resulting in 9,90% for year 3 is appropriate as well, but 12.80% for the
whole project, that slightly exceeds the usual 10%. It can be explained by the increased
workload with respect to initially expected in WP5 and WP6.
4
"The principle of economy, efficiency and effectiveness refers to the standard of “good housekeeping” in spending
public money effectively. Economy can be understood as minimising the costs of resources used for an activity
(input), having regard to the appropriate quality and can be linked to efficiency, which is the relationship between
the outputs and the resources used to produce them. Effectiveness is concerned with measuring the extent to which
the objectives have been achieved and the relationship between the intended impact and the actual impact of an
activity. Cost effectiveness means the relationship between project costs and outcomes, expressed as costs per unit
of outcome achieved." Guide to Financial Issues, Version 02/04/2009, p.33.

21. 21
b. Deviations
If applicable, please comment on major deviations with respect to the planned resources.
There were deviations in M30 reported in D1.1.5, D1.1.6 and D1.5 (Table 3).
Table 3: Deviation report
Deviation Subject Justification Remarks
D7.2: Models Validation and
Verification Results
Due to the nature of deliverable (i.e., final
validation of models) delivery date
extended from M28 to M33.
Accepted. Long
delay justified.
D7.3: Users’ Evaluation
Report
Due to the nature of deliverable (i.e., final
evaluation of system) delivery date
extended from M30 to M36.
Accepted. Long
delay justified.
NUIG reported higher efforts than originally estimated, in particular cumulatively year 3
(58.8PM vs 17PM estimated) for WP5: “SIFEM Rich Semantic Infostructure”, Task 5.3:
“Knowledge services”. Besides, in WP6: “SIFEM Infrastructure Integration”, NUIG
contributed 12PM effort vs 8PM estimated. This is justified because the iterative process of
integrating the SIFEM infostructure affected both interrelated WPs and was more labour
intensive than originally envisaged.
In any case, NUIG employed a number of fellowship students (or equivalent) for these WPs,
which produced higher person months while their salary costs were low, but it has not
compromised the quality of work produced. There has been no adverse effects on the project
and not overspent appears on the allocated budget.
4. MANAGEMENT, COLLABORATION AND BENEFICIARIES’ ROLES
a. Technical, administrative and financial management of the project
Assess the quality and effectiveness of the project management, including the management of
individual work packages, the handling of any problems and the implementation of previous review
recommendations. Comment also on the quality and completeness of information and documentation.
Technical and financial management are demonstrated to be appropriate. The quality assurance
plan (QAP) (D1.2 - year 1) detailing the management of each WP, roles of each partner in each
WP and a continuous monitoring process to assure high quality controls to produce standardized
deliverables, seems to be accurately followed. The project coordinator has demonstrated a high
commitment with the management of SIFEM not only during this year 3, but throughout the
project.
The necessary mechanisms and structures for the management and administrative coordination
of the project have been applied. As proof of this, the expected deliverables have been carried
out at good/excellent technical level (two of them delayed, but justified) and planned milestones
have been achieved according to the dates of completion for these deliverables.
b. Collaboration and communication
Comment on the quality and effectiveness of the collaboration and communication between the
beneficiaries.

22. 22
Communication processes between participants have been satisfactory defined: Two plenary
meetings were held in year 3: SIFEM 6th
Plenary Meeting, Athens (Greece), 28-29 May, 2015;
SIFEM 7th
Plenary Meeting, Belgrade (Serbia), 4-5 November, 2015. Moreover, monthly
technical meetings via Skype allow satisfactory discussing and following up of the project.
Collaboration among partners is efficient taking into account the quality of the results obtained
(according to deliverables supplied). The same happens at administrative level since there are
no incidents on this regard.
c. Beneficiaries’ roles
Give an assessment of the role and contribution of each individual beneficiary and indicate if there is
any evidence of underperformance, lack of commitment or change of interest.
The SIFEM consortium combines 10 multidisciplinary partners from Universities, Research
institutes and business from 7 EU countries and New Zealand. The partners are:
1. The National University of Ireland, Galway (NUI, Galway) - Digital Enterprise Research
Institute (NUIG-DERI): devoted to the coordination and development of semantic
technologies.
2. The Institute of Communications and Computer Systems (ICCS). It is associated with the
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering (SECE) of the National Technical University
of Athens (NTUA). ICCS will carry out RTDs activities in the fields of telecommunications
and computer systems.
3. The Institute of Sound and Vibration Research (ISVR), which is a School of the Faculty of
Engineering, Science and Mathematics at the University of Southampton (England). Its role
in the project is focused on acoustics.
4. The Linköping University (LiU, Sweden) - Group of Technical Audiology, is working in the
field of hearing science and audiological rehabilitation.
5. The Bioengineering Research and Development Center (BioIRC). It is a SME for
bioengineering, scientific computing and software development located at Kragujevac
(Serbia).
6. INTRASOFT International S.A. is a leading European company (Belgium) oriented to ICT
services provision.
7. The Ear Institute (University College London, UCL-EI, UK) is specialised in Speech
Hearing and Phonetic Sciences, and hosts regular cross‐disciplinary and work‐in‐progress
talks and virtual and on‐site seminars for clinicians.
8. The National & Kapodistrian University of Athens (UoA, Greece) - Department of
Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery. It provides wide experience in clinical services for
Otology and Audiology. It is also one of the Cochlear Implant Centres in Athens. In
particular, is focused in the assessment of hearing and balance using the latest technology in
audiological and vestibular research.
9. The Technical University Munich (TUM, Germany) - Department of Otorhinolaryngology
(HNO‐Klinik), which belongs to the Medical Faculty and dedicated to the transfer of results

23. 23
from research to industry. This partner replaces the University of Houston (USA) which
initially has a significant role in dissemination and exploitation.
10. The partner from New Zealand (Victoria University of Wellington, RTV) is focused on
electrical coupling.
SIFEM as a whole is balanced according to their expertise. The role and the technical
contribution of the Victoria University of Wellington are well defined for this year 3.
The evaluation of the degree of development and commitment of beneficiaries for the final year
by work package is given in Table 4.
Table 4: Degree of development and commitment of beneficiaries per WP
Work package Beneficiaries Performance Commitment
WP1: Project Management, Dissemination and
Exploitation
NUIG ; ICCS ;
ISVR ; LiU ;
BIOIRC ;
INTRASOFT ;
UCL-EI ; UoA ;
TUM ; RTV
Good High
WP2: Design of the SIFEM System NUIG ; ICCS ;
ISVR ; LiU ;
BIOIRC ;
INTRASOFT ;
UCL-EI ; UoA
Good High
WP3: Open source finite Element Modelling Tool and 3
visualization
ICCS ; ISVR ;
LiU ; BIOIRC ;
INTRASOFT ;
UCL-EI ; UoA ;
TUM
Good High
WP4: Multiscale Modelling of the Inner Ear ICCS ; ISVR ;
LiU ; UCL-EI ;
RTV
Excellent High
WP5: SIFEM Rich Semantic Infostructure NUIG ; ICCS ;
INTRASOFT
Good High
WP6: SIFEM Infraestructure Integration NUIG ; ICCS ;
BIOIRC ;
INTRASOFT
Excellent High
WP7: Validation, Models Verification and SIFEM
Infostructure Evaluation
NUIG ; ICCS ;
ISVR ; LiU ;
INTRASOFT ;
UCL-EI; UoA ;
TUM ; RTV
Excellent High

24. 24
5. USE AND DISSEMINATION OF FOREGROUND
a. Impact
Is there evidence that the project has so far had, and is it likely to have, significant scientific,
technical, commercial, social or environmental impact (where applicable)?
The final outcomes of SIFEM will be used to better identify the mechanisms that are responsible
for the highly sensitive and dynamic properties of the cochlea during different types of hearing
loss. This has a huge social impact given the increasing ageing of the European population:
according to the World Health Organisation (WHO), hearing loss of all types and degrees is the
most frequent sensory deficit, affecting more than 360 millions of people worldwide. Over 25%
of the population over sixty five years old is affected.
From the scientific point of view, a total of 78 scientific publications (13 journal papers and 65
conference presentations / poster / invited lectures) have already been published in March, 2016.
Four works supported by SIFEM won prestigious awards: (1) Spoendlin Junior award at the 51st
inner Ear Biology Workshop, Sheffield (U.K.) in 2014; (2) Sir James Lighthill award at the 21st
International Congress on Sound and Vibration, Beijing (China) in 2014; (3) Sir James Lighthill
award at the 22nd
International Congress on Sound and Vibration, Florence (Italy) in 2015; (4)
Award at the Tenth IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing, Laguna Hills,
California (USA) in 2016.
From the technical point of view, the evaluation of the SIFEM infostructure (functionality and
ease of use), not only by the partners in the project, but by external experts, give an average
score of 3 out of 5 scale. One third of testing engineers believe that the system is far from well
integrated. Despite the fact that the final results showed most users are likely to use the platform in
their everyday work, this implies that the SIFEM platform needs further improvements (not
rated) to get a marketable product of appropriate level.
From the commercial point of view, the exploitation of SIFEM has become convincing. The
services, products and models derived, in addition to the potential market and users (clients) are
fixed, but they have to be trustily carried out after the completion of the project.
b. Use of results
Comment on whether the plan for the use of foreground, including any updates, is still appropriate.
Comment also on the plan for the exploitation and use of foreground for the consortium as a whole,
or for individual beneficiaries or groups of beneficiaries, and its progress to date.
SIFEM clearly indicate a route from basic science into clinical practice. The final edition of the
exploitation plan of SIFEM until M36 (D1.3.2) identifies the main and secondary results and
outputs of the project. These exploitable results and outputs are categorized as internal (opaque to
users) and external (interface to users) or both internal and external. The Unique Selling Proposition
(USP) concept is adequate for SIFEM exploitation (differential case perspective -see details on
Section 6.3 in D1.3.2-). Related Key Success Factors (KSFs) are defined, but the last one is
worrying: “ensuring continuous funding for the implementation of the SIFEM exploitation plan is a
prerequisite even for the attempt to be successful in exploiting SIFEM”. Proposals are not given for
getting such funding, even when a study of exploitation is presented (it is suggested searching for
sponsorship or crow-funding).
A complete (quantitative) market analysis (including geographical segmentation) has been
performed in year 3. Market figures are focused on U.K. data and forecasts as representative for

25. 25
European potential because figures on so representative markets (even higher) as Germany and
France are not given do not exist.
The preference of SIFEM partners on specific services (IT Consulting -maintenance, deployment,
hosting, etc-; Medical consulting -3D modelling, etc-; Training) and their willingness to be involved
in the offering of these services are well structured.
Also the skills required for running the SIFEM system: not only for technical end users to setting up
and maintaining the system, but for clinicians (non‐technical end‐users) to be able to use the system.
The items on which a potential customer has to invest to deploy the full potential of the SIFEM
solution are well summarized and quantified.
Three high-impact practical demonstrations of SIFEM solution have been organized by the project’s
consortium in the final stage of the project for assessing the marketability of the SIFEM solution as
well as promoting this solution to potential customers. Similar actions are not planned beyond the
completion of the project, so the continuity to make a real commercial exploitation could be
doubtful.
The pricing for the extra features and customization of the full edition of the SIFEM platform are
adequate. Net profit estimation and break‐even are credible for a five-year view (until 2021).
IPR handling is in accordance with the Intellectual Property Rules for FP7 projects and the main
directives adopted by the European Union. The existing background and expected foreground
knowledge are well identified.
The delivered tools enhance and accelerate the modelling activities about inner ear, resulting on
validated and robust multi‐scale models that will contribute to the relevant VPH-SHARE FP7 RTD
project [http://www.vph-share.eu/], providing multi‐disciplinary researchers with access to reusable
SIFEM inner ear models.
c. Dissemination
Assess whether the dissemination of project results and information (via the project website,
publications, conferences, etc.) has been adequate and appropriate.
A total of 13 journal papers and 65 conference presentations / poster / invited lectures have
already been published so far. Great efforts have been put to increase the influence of journal
publications, particularly in the fields of otolaryngology, hearing, acoustic and multidisciplinary
sciences with 3 papers published in Hearing Research (IF 3.143), 3 papers in Journal of the

26. 26
Acoustical Society of America (IF 1.736), and 1 paper in Journal of the Royal Society Interface
(IF 4.650). The access to the publications of public nature should be facilitated on the SIFEM
web page (as the case of PU deliverables).
In order to reach wider audiences to disseminate the SIFEM project, a project video has been
created and uploaded to Vimeo, Insight Website, and on the European Commission Web site
(eHealth DG).
According to section 3.2 of D1.4.3 (Dissemination plans M36), a special Workshop on
modelling cochlear mechanics and a hearing sciences Course have been performed in 2014 to
spread SIFEM results and attract awareness outside. Another equivalent Workshop was carried
out in 2015 along with 3 invited talks and 2 demonstrations. One special invited talk focused on
demonstration of the SIFEM system usability was performed in February 2016.
It is suggested that these activities could be recorded on video and also be disseminated through
the web for online self-training purposes.
The impressive figure of more than 80,000 overall visits to the project website reinforces this
suggestion. People who visited the SIFEM website most came from the United States, Germany
and China, which are the leading countries in the project’s relevant fields.
On the main-page of the website of the project [http://www.sifem-project.eu/], three important
aspects are incorporated:
A dissemination video held on Vimeo [https://vimeo.com/137820655], as proper
community of professionals unlike YouTube's massive audience.
A link to a questionnaire for sharing external expert’s understandings and thoughts to
contribute to the SIFEM project:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1jyX9nrxjuTttBiYawCi8010eh4tv2ZyNt7hczIFyN-
A/viewform?sid=46df7fb3801fa535&token=FK_fyj0BAAA._nY3W43ASbLvZRfZVIsudg.
OVF5taas_6KQppKdwL8n1A
Four specific links to make the SIFEM research visible:
• Twitter (massive social network): https://twitter.com/SifemProjectEU
• LinkedIn (network of professionals): https://www.linkedin.com/grps/Sifem-Project-
7440702
• BiomedTown (specialized network): https://www.biomedtown.org/biomed_town/sifem
• ResearchGate (specialized network): www.researchgate.net/project/SIFEM
These rooms do not contain all the public information about SIFEM related matters.
d. Involvement of potential users and stakeholders
Indicate whether potential users and other stakeholders (outside the consortium) are suitably
involved (if applicable).
Potential users have been precisely identified during year 3. The dissemination plan set in the
deliverable D1.4.3 reflects that potential users of the SIFEM platform are suitably involved.

27. 27
The D7.3: “Users’ Evaluation Report” shows that the SIFEM platform has been evaluated from
two groups. First case is inside the consortium (internal reviewers/evaluators). All partners
completed the evaluation questionnaires and accomplished an evaluation of the platform by
using it extensively.
The second case is from external reviewers/evaluators. More specifically, each partner organized
a presentation of the project as well as the platform to external reviewers. At least 5-10 external
reviewers accomplished the evaluation.
Totally, 50 SUS questionnaires have been received, showing researchers is the group who will
mainly benefit from the SIFEM platform.
e. Links with other projects and programmes
Comment on the consortium’s interaction with other related Framework Programme projects and
other national/international R&D programmes and standardisation bodies (if relevant).
There is an indication in D1.5: “Final report” of collaborative work with two related EU RTD
projects:
• VPH-SHARE [http://vph-portal.eu/vph-share]: 7FP EU-funded project aiming to create a
collaborative VPH environment for workflow developers and users.
Several meetings (Skype calls) with the VPH-SHARE consortium to specify the
collaboration level that can be achieved towards the open VPH models has been made by
ICCS, INTRASOFT.
• HEAR-EU [http://www.hear-eu.eu/]: 7FP EU-funded project focused on high-resolution
image-based computational inner ear modelling for surgical planning of cochlear
implantation.
This project has been identified in SIFEM’s domain and exchanges of ideas have been
established. No more information is given on this regard.
In addition, there is the flap "synergies" on the SIFEM web [http://www.sifem-
project.eu/node/32], where a table of projects, networks and centres related to the objectives of
SIFEM are given. However their relationship to SIFEM is not explicitly written.
6. OTHER ISSUES
If applicable, comment on whether other relevant issues (e.g. ethical issues, policy/regulatory issues,
safety issues) have been handled appropriately.
Psychoacoustic tuning curve (PTC) data was used as clinical validation tool for the SIFEM
middle ear model verification (see chapter 8 of D7.2). Hence normal subjects as well as patients
with hearing loss were recruited. The test protocol was submitted and approved by the
University of Athens Ethics Committee (No 2603, 17-02-2015).

28. 28
Name(s) of expert(s): Martín Lerones, Pedro; López-Escamez, José Antonio; Venot, Alain
Date: 22 March, 2016
Signature(s):
Martín Lerones, Pedro López-Escamez, José Antonio Venot, Alain