MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1698227950 · doi:10.1080/14992020500258628

Comparison of multiple auditory steady-state responses (80 versus 40 Hz) and slow cortical potentials for threshold estimation in hearing-impaired adults

2005· article· en· W1698227950 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Audiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAudiogramAudiologyEvoked potentialTone burstSteady state (chemistry)Hearing lossMedicinePsychologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the use of multiple auditory steady-state responses (ASSRs) and slow cortical potentials (SCPs) to estimate behavioural audiograms in adults for compensation cases. Two groups of 23 subjects were assessed using either 80 Hz or 40 Hz multiple simultaneous tones with carrier frequencies of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 kHz. SCP thresholds for 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 kHz were obtained for both groups. Mean evoked potential thresholds (dB HL) minus behavioural pure-tone thresholds (dB HL) difference scores were 5-17 dB for the 80 Hz group, 1-14 dB for the 40 Hz group, and 20-22 dB for the SCPs. Thresholds for 40 Hz ASSR were significantly closer to behavioural thresholds than were 80 Hz or SCP thresholds. SCP and 40 Hz ASSR audiogram estimates were obtained more quickly than the 80 Hz ASSR. Multiple 40 Hz ASSR is the method of choice for evoked potential threshold estimation in adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it