Measuring the Advantage of Kalman-Weighted Averaging for Auditory Brainstem Response Hearing Evaluation in Infants
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to (a) measure the effects of Kalman-weighted averaging methods on auditory brainstem response (ABR) threshold, latency, and amplitude; (b) translate lab findings to the clinical setting; and (c) estimate cost savings when ABRs can be obtained in nonsedated infants. METHOD: ABRs were recorded in 40 adults with normal hearing during induced motor noise conditions using the Kalman-weighted averaging method implemented on a commercial system, the Vivosonic Integrity (Vivosonic Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada). The device was then used to test 34 infants in awake and asleep states. The advantages of the Kalman-weighted averaging method were modeled in terms of time saved for conducting an ABR evaluation. RESULTS: Kalman-weighted ABR threshold estimates were 6-7 dB lower than with conventional methods during induced motor noise. When used to obtain ABRs in infants who were awake, the number of sweeps required to obtain a result was significantly greater than that required for a sleeping infant but well within the range for clinical application. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Kalman-weighted averaging provides a measurable advantage over conventional methods and may reduce costs for the pediatric audiology practice.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it