Noise-Induced Hearing Loss in Snorers and Their Bed Partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As habitual snoring affects a large percentage of the population and is associated with various medical and social complications, we examined whether loud snoring is also associated with noise-induced hearing loss for the snorers and/or their bed partners. PATIENT SELECTION: Healthy adults between the ages of 35 and 55 years with subjective symptoms of severe snoring were screened to exclude those with a past history of noise exposure (e.g., factory workers, army personnel), use of ototoxic medications, and previously diagnosed hearing disorder. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Behavioural audiograms and otoacoustic emission testing were used to evaluate the subjects' hearing. RESULTS: Although all of the snorers did not demonstrate consistent hearing loss patterns, all four bed partners of snorers in our study demonstrated a unilateral high-frequency pattern of hearing loss consistent with noise-induced hearing loss. Furthermore, the affected ear in every case was the one that was claimed to be chronically exposed to snoring noise. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that there may be a relationship between snoring and noise-induced hearing loss in the bed partners of chronic snorers. Further investigation of this association may enable the population at risk to identify early hearing loss in order that appropriate management of noise exposure and snoring can be recommended, including preventive measures and medical and surgical therapies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".