MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980959657 · doi:10.3109/14992027.2010.551221

Re-examining the relationship between audiometric profile and tinnitus pitch

2011· article· en· W1980959657 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Audiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTinnitusAudiologyHearing lossAudiogramMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: We explored the relationship between audiogram shape and tinnitus pitch to answer questions arising from neurophysiological models of tinnitus: ‘Is the dominant tinnitus pitch associated with the edge of hearing loss?’ and ‘Is such a relationship more robust in people with narrow tinnitus bandwidth or steep sloping hearing loss?’ Design: A broken-stick fitting objectively quantified slope, degree and edge of hearing loss up to 16 kHz. Tinnitus pitch was characterized up to 12 kHz. We used correlation and multiple regression analyses for examining relationships with many potentially predictive audiometric variables. Study Sample: 67 people with chronic bilateral tinnitus (43 men and 24 women, aged from 22 to 81 years). Results: In this ample of 67 subjects correlation failed to reveal any relationship between the tinnitus pitch and the edge frequency. The tinnitus pitch generally fell within the area of hearing loss. The pitch of the tinnitus in a subset of subjects with a narrow tinnitus bandwidth (n = 23) was associated with the audiometric edge. Conclusions: Our findings concerning subjects with narrow tinnitus bandwidth suggest that this can be used as an a priori inclusion criterion. A large group of such subjects should be tested to confirm these results.SumarioObjetivo: Exploramos la relación entre la forma del audiograma y el tono del acufeno para responder a preguntas provenientes de modelos neurofisiológicos del acúfeno: ‘Es el tono dominante del acúfeno asociado con el borde de la hipoacusia?’y ‘Será tal relación más robusta en personas con un acúfeno de banda angosta o con una hipoacusia de caída abrupta?’ Diseño: Una pendiente tipo “palo roto” objetivamente cuantificada, con severidad y borde de la hipoacusia hasta 16 kHz. El tono del acúfeno fue caracterizado hasta 12 kHz. Utilizamos un análisis de correlación y regresión múltiple para examinar la relación con muchas de las variables potencialmente predictivas. Muestra del estudio: 67 personas con acúfeno bilateral crónico (43 hombres y 24 mujeres con edades entre 22 y 81 años). Resultados: En esta amplia muestra de 67 sujetos, la correlación no demostró ninguna relación entre el acúfeno y el borde de la frecuencia. El tono del acúfeno generalmente cayó dentro del área de la hipoacusia. En un subgrupo de sujetos, que tenían un acúfeno de banda angosta (n=23), si hubo asociación con el borde audiométrico. Conclusiones: Nuestros hallazgos que corresponden a los sujetos con un acúfeno de banda angosta, sugieren que esto puede ser utilizado a priori como un criterio de inclusión. Un grupo grande de sujetos debe ser examinado para confirmar estos resultados.

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)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.109 · 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