A cross-over, double-blind comparison of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v4.1 prescriptions for children with mild to moderately severe hearing loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relative effectiveness of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL4.1 prescriptions for 48 children with mild to moderately severe hearing loss was studied using a double-blind, four-period, two-treatment cross-over design in Australia and in Canada. Evaluations included speech perception tests, loudness ratings, reports from parents and teachers on functional performance in real life, children's self-reports, paired-comparison judgements of intelligibility, and children's preferences in real-world environments. Electroacoustic measures of hearing aids revealed that gain differences dominated the comparison. Across trials and measures, individual Australian children consistently preferred either the NAL-NL1 or the DSL v.4.1 prescription. An overall figure of merit (FOM), calculated by averaging the standardized difference scores between prescriptions for all measures, revealed that the strongest prescription-related differences were found in Australia. On average, an advantage and preference for the NAL-NL1 prescription was associated with lesser degrees of hearing loss. This research provides evidence on the effectiveness of the NAL-NL1 and DSL v.4.1 prescriptions, and highlights the need for evaluating and fine-tuning amplification to meet the diverse needs of individual children in real life.SumarioSe estudió la relativa efectividad de las prescripciones NAL-NL1 y DSL 4.1 en 48 niños con pérdidas auditivas de leves a moderadamente severas, usando un estudio doble ciego, en cuatro períodos y con un diseño cruzado de dos tratamientos en Australia y en Canadá. Las evaluaciones incluyeron pruebas de percepción de la palabra, tasas de reclutamiento, auto-reportes de los niños, juicios de inteligibilidad comparados por pares y preferencias de los niños en ambientes de mundo real. Las mediciones electroacústicas de los auxiliares auditivos revelaron que las diferencias en ganancia dominaron la comparación. En todas las pruebas y mediciones, los niños Australianos individualmente prefirieron de manera consistente tanto la prescripción NAL-NL1 como la DSL v.4.1. Una figura global de mérito (FOM), calculada al promediar las puntuaciones de diferencias estandarizadas entre prescripciones de todas las medidas, revelaron que las diferencias más fuertemente relacionadas con la prescripción, se encontraron en Australia. En promedio, la ventaja y preferencias hacia la prescripción NAL-NL1 se asoció con grados menores de pérdida auditiva. Esta investigación proporciona evidencia de la efectividad de las prescripciones NAL-NL1 y DSL v.4.1 y pone de relieve la necesidad de evaluar y de afinar la amplificación para alcanzar las diversas necesi-dades individuales de los niños en la vida real.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".