Accuracy of the Weber and Rinne Tuning Fork Tests in Evaluation of Children with Otitis Media with Effusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of the Rinne and Weber tuning fork tests in predicting the degree of hearing loss secondary to otitis media with effusion (OME) in children compared with pure-tone audiometry. DESIGN: A blinded prospective study was performed on cases of unilateral and bilateral OME in children between ages 2 and 11 years. SETTING: Patients were recruited from the tertiary Pediatric Otolaryngology Clinic at British Columbia's Children's Hospital in Vancouver. METHODS: The subjects consisted of 58 children with unilateral or bilateral OME. The Rinne and Weber tests were performed using a 256 Hz and a 512 Hz tuning fork. Pure-tone audiometry was performed to establish the presence and degree of an air-bone gap (ABG). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The tuning fork responses were correlated with the ABG to determine their accuracy. RESULTS: The Weber test did not show an association between the ABG and the lateralization response using either the 256 Hz (p = .484) or the 512 Hz tuning fork (p = .120). For the Rinne test, an increase in ABG was significantly associated with a higher rate of response air conduction < bone conduction using either the 256 Hz or the 512 Hz fork (p < .04). Age was not associated with outcome for any of the tuning fork tests. CONCLUSIONS: The overall accuracy of the Rinne and Weber tuning fork tests in predicting conductive hearing loss associated with OME in children is poor.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".