Evaluation of Cochlear Function in Patients with Tinnitus Using Spontaneous and Transitory Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper has been to investigate the cochlear function and the basic properties of otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) in patients with tinnitus using Spontaneous Otoacoustic Emissions (SOAEs) and Transitory Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions (TEOAEs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have analyzed the incidence, amplitude and spectral content of hearing thresholds, SOAEs and TEOAEs in a sample of 44 ears. We have measured incidence, intensity, frequency, number of peaks and amplitude of emission and their variability across frequency range from 500 to 5000 Hz. A correlation was determined between the OAEs results and the results obtained using hearing thresholds. RESULTS: We have not found statistically significant differences at 500, 1000, 2000, 4000 and 8000 Hz frequencies neither at mean hearing thresholds between the sample of ears with tinnitus and the sample of ears without tinnitus. SOAEs were only present in 1 of the 44 ears tested (2.27%) and it was a 17 dB SPL amplitude peak at 2770 Hz frequency. TEOAEs, however, were displayed in some frequency in all the ears. We have compared TEOAEs parameters between the sample of ears with tinnitus and the sample of ears without tinnitus in 500, 1000, 2000, 4000 and 5000 Hz frequencies, and we have only found statistically significant differences at 4000 Hz, p = 0.02. Comparison of TEOAEs parameters between ears with tinnitus and ears without tinnitus in the same patient have only found statistically significant differences at 4000 Hz frequency, p = 0.011. In both cases there were not statistically significant differences at 500, 1000, 2000 and 5000 Hz frequencies nor at mean TEOAEs amplitudes for every group. CONCLUSIONS: We have not found significant relations between tinnitus and OAEs registration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".