MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086897368 · doi:10.3109/14992020903082096

Prescribed real-ear and achieved real-life differences in children's hearing aids adjusted according to the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v.4.1 prescriptions

2010· article· en· W2086897368 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Audiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologyMedical prescriptionHearing lossMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examined how hearing aids adjusted for comparing NAL-NL1 with DSLv.4.1 prescription formulas matched prescriptive targets. The real-ear-to-coupler differences (RECD) of 48 children (24 in Australia and 24 in Canada) were measured and used to derive coupler gain targets. Verification of gain and output were carried out in an HA2-2cc coupler. Electroacoustic measurements revealed a minimal difference between NAL-NL1 and DSLv.4.1 frequency-response slopes due to practical limitations of the devices, even though the prescribed differences were large (up to 13 dB/octave). The difference in overall gain was generally achieved in the hearing aids, with DSLv.4.1 prescribing higher overall gain than NAL-NL1. The mean RECD at 4 kHz was 5 dB higher for children in Australia than in Canada. As the same RECDs were used in deriving targets for both prescriptions, this is unlikely to affect the results of the comparison. The impact of a gain difference between prescriptions on children's performance and preferences in real life is reported in separate papers.SumarioEste trabajo examinó cómo los auxiliares auditivos ajustados para comparar las recetas NAL-NL1 y DSLv.4.1 se ajustaron a las metas de prescripción. Se midieron las diferencias de oído-real a acoplador (RECD) de 48 niños (24 de Australia y 24 de Canadá), y se utilizaron para derivar las metas de ganancia por acoplador. La verificación de la ganancia y la salida se realizó en un acoplador HA2-2cc. Las mediciones electroacústicas revelaron una diferencia mínima entre las curvas de respuesta frecuencial de la NAL-NL1 y la SDLv.4.1, debido a limitaciones prácticas de los dispositivos, aunque las diferencias de prescripción eran grandes (hasta de 13 dB/octava). La diferencia en ganancia global fue generalmente lograda en los auxiliares auditivos, con el DSLv-4.1 indicando una ganancia global más alta que la del NAL-NL1. La RECD a 4 kHz fue 5 dB más alta para los niños de Australia que para los de Canadá. Dado que se usaron los mismas RECD para derivar las metas en ambas recetas, es improbable que éstas afecten los resultados de la comparación. El impacto de la diferencia de ganancia entre las recetas, para el desempeño de los niños y sus preferencias en la vida real se reporta en trabajos separados.

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.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.261 · 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