Re-examining the relationship between audiometric profile and tinnitus pitch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".