Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) in Caucasian and Chinese young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to examine the effect of race and gender on transient evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) characteristics. TEOAE amplitude, noise levels, and hearing thresholds were compared in 81 Caucasian (mean age: 27.8 years) and 81 Chinese (mean age: 24.7 years) young adults with normal hearing. TEOAE amplitude was significantly higher in females than males and in the Chinese group than the Caucasian group. Females had better hearing sensitivity than males consistent with TEOAE results. Hearing sensitivity was not statistically different between the two racial groups; however, the interaction between race and hearing thresholds was significant. As the noise levels between the two racial groups were not statistically different, the observed differences are most likely related to differences in middle-ear transmission properties or to differences in cochlear mechanisms. Documentation of gender and racial differences and understanding the underlying mechanism of these differences will not only assist us in understanding how TEOAE will be affected by middle-ear transmission properties but also will help us in establishing normative data in clinical settings.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".