Excessive Noise Levels in the Neonatal ICU: Potential Effects on Auditory System Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Several recent studies have found exceedingly high noise levels in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and in incubators. The purpose of this study was to perform a detailed noise assessment in a Canadian NICU. METHODS: A noise level meter was used to evaluate ambient noise levels in three rooms of the NICU and to compare those levels with measurements taken inside an occupied incubator. RESULTS: Mean hourly noise levels measured inside the incubator (61 dB) were significantly higher than those measured outside (55 dB). Ambient noise levels were also significantly higher in rooms where staff activity was greatest (59 dB). In addition, peak noise levels in excess of 120 dB were found. CONCLUSION: These findings are consistent with those of previous studies and suggest that noise levels in the NICU are excessive. Furthermore, staff activity is a significant contributor. The suggestion that noise in the NICU is detrimental to both auditory and central nervous system development is discussed and intervention strategies are recommended.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".