Does Scuba Diving Cause Hearing Loss?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the hearing levels and transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) of scuba divers. METHODS: The study group consisted of 15 scuba divers (9 males, 6 females) and 30 ears. The control group consisted of 15 healthy nondiver patients (9 males, 6 females) and 30 ears. For the study group, total diving duration (TDD), total diving score (TDS), duration after the last dive (DALD), and maximum diving depth (MDD) were obtained by questionnaire. All subjects were evaluated by an otolaryngologic examination, pure-tone and high-frequency audiometry, and transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the hearing thresholds and TEOAEs of the study and control groups. For divers, age, higher TDDs and TDSs, and a higher MDD caused an increase in hearing thresholds and a decrease in TEOAEs. When the DALD increased, cochlear functions again achieved nearly normal levels. CONCLUSION: We recommend that divers' hearing levels and cochlear functions be evaluated before diving. Noninfected status and differences in the volume of the mastoid cell system may explain the results of our study.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".