MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000030436 · doi:10.1121/1.4779091

A comparison of middle ear acoustic admittance in adults and 3-week-old infants based on multifrequency tympanometry

2002· article· en· W2000030436 on OpenAlexaff
Linda Polka, Navid Shahnaz, Anthony Zeitouni

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInfant Health and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTympanometrySusceptanceAudiologyAdmittanceMiddle earMedicineHearing lossPhysicsAnatomyAudiometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The assessment of newborn hearing requires information on middle ear status yet the interpretation of tympanometry in newborns is unclear. This study aims to further our understanding of acoustic admittance in the newborn middle ear. Multifrequency tympanograms were recorded from sixteen 3-week-old infants (30 ears) and sixteen young normal-hearing adults (30 ears). Tympanometry was conducted using the Virtual 310 middle ear analyzer using 9 probe tone frequencies between 226 and 1000 Hz at roughly 100 Hz intervals. All infants passed a hearing screening using automated ABR (Algo II) shortly after birth (within 24 h) and again at 3-weeks of age. At 226 Hz, admittance tympanograms had a single peak in all adult ears while 60% of infant ears had multiple peaks or irregular patterns. At 1000 Hz admittance tympanograms had a single peak for 74% of infant ears while 78% of adult ears showed multiple peak or irregular patterns. Analyses of tympanometric shape (using the Vanhuyse classification scheme), as well as static admittance, static susceptance, and static conductance also reveal differences in adult and infant middle ear function. Implications for the clinical application of tympanometry in the first month of life will be discussed.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicInfant Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207