Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hearing loss, both sensorineural and conductive, has been reported in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to try and ascertain the type of hearing loss and to determine the cause for any conductive element noted in these cases. DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective case-control study in the otolaryngology department of a university teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. METHODS AND OUTCOME MEASURES: This study compared 35 patients with RA with 35 age- and sex-matched controls. All patients had pure-tone audiometry, speech discrimination, tympanometry, acoustic reflex, and acoustic reflex decay carried out. Statistical analysis of the two groups was carried out using the F test for differences in variation and the t-test for independent samples. RESULTS: Sensorineural hearing loss that was statistically significant (p < .05) at 500 Hz, 1 kHz, and 2 kHz in both ears was found in 60% of the RA group and in 34.29% of the control group. A conductive hearing loss that was statistically significant (p < .05) at 250 Hz, 500 Hz, 1 kHz, and 2 kHz in the right and left ears was found in 17.14% of the RA patients and in 5.71% of the control group. Speech discrimination did not show a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Tympanometry showed that the conductive element was probably owing to laxity of the middle ear transducer mechanism. Acoustic reflex and reflex decay did not show statistically significant differences between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Sensorineural hearing loss of the cochlear variety is a common finding in patients with RA, whereas conductive loss, although seen, is much less common. Increased laxity of the middle ear transducer mechanism is the likely cause of the conductive element.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".