MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053861383 · doi:10.1037/a0027193

Click-evoked otoacoustic emissions: Response amplitude is associated with circulating testosterone levels in men.

2012· article· en· W2053861383 on OpenAlexafffund
Adrian W.K. Snihur, Elizabeth Hampson

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Neuroscience · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTestosterone (patch)CochleaAudiologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiologyPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In rhesus monkeys, the magnitude of the cochlear response to auditory stimuli (click-evoked otoacoustic emissions, [CEOAEs]) is correlated with seasonal changes in circulating testosterone levels. The present study investigated the association between circulating testosterone and CEOAE production in men. CEOAEs were measured in 67 men and 37 women, and saliva was analyzed to quantify bioavailable testosterone. A sex difference in CEOAE response amplitude was found, confirming previous reports. In agreement with the monkey work, seasonal variation in the CEOAE response amplitude also was identified. CEOAEs were greater in summer and fall, the seasons that showed the lowest levels of circulating testosterone. On an individual basis, men who had higher levels of testosterone at the time of assessment exhibited smaller CEOAE response amplitudes. These findings support previous data from rhesus macaques and are consistent with the prospect of an activational effect of testosterone in the human cochlea.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral NeuroscienceSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207