Aural symptoms in temporomandibular disorder patients attending a craniofacial pain unit.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To determine (1) the prevalence of aural symptoms in orofacial pain patients and (2) a potential association between temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and aural health, while controlling for covariates known to be associated with TMD or auditory dysfunction. METHODS: In a retrospective study, health questionnaires, medical histories, clinical findings, diagnoses, and treatments were systematically retrieved from the charts of 776 patients. The dates of initial assessment ranged from May 1987 to June 1999. Of the included subjects, 39.7% were female; the median age was 39 years; 16.4% displayed only aural symptoms (otalgia, tinnitus, vertigo, or perceived hearing loss); 26.4% had both TMD and aural symptoms; 17.8% had TMD but no aural complaints; and 39.4% had neither TMD nor aural symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 344 subjects who had TMD, 59.9% complained of aural symptoms, versus 29.2% of the 432 patients without TMD. Of the subjects with otalgia, tinnitus, vertigo, or perceived hearing loss, 67%, 64.1%, 65.2%, and 62.2% had TMD, respectively. Subjects with aural symptoms were significantly more likely to be female; to consider themselves in poor health; to smoke; or to have TMD, orofacial pain, headaches (temporal, occipital, or frontal), neck and shoulder pain, altered vision and sensation, sleep disturbances, loss of appetite, memory loss, or low energy. Clinical findings indicated that pathognomonic signs of TMD were associated with an increased risk of aural complaints in this patient population. A significantly greater negative impact on normal life functions was found in subjects exhibiting aural symptoms versus those who only had TMD complaints. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that TMD is significantly correlated to aural health, although no cause-and-effect relationship has yet been demonstrated. Aural symptoms were also found to have a measurable impact on the subjects' quality of life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".