MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156726600 · doi:10.2310/7070.2007.0032

Risk of Damage to Hearing from Personal Listening Devices in Young Adults

2007· article· en· W2156726600 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jianhua Peng, Zezhang Tao, Zhiwu Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologyAudiometryActive listeningMedicineHearing lossNoise (video)PsychologyCommunicationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of personal listening device use on hearing in young listeners. METHODS: Conventional frequency audiometry (0.5-8 kHz) and extended high-frequency audiometry (10-20 kHz) were performed on 120 personal listening device users and 30 normal-hearing young adults. RESULTS: The hearing thresholds in the 3 to 8 kHz frequency range were significantly increased in the personal listening device listeners. The frequency range of the increased thresholds became broad as the exposure duration was increased. Impaired hearing was detected in 14.1% (34 of 240 ears) of ears (> 25 dB HL in one or more frequencies in 0.5-8 kHz). The hearing thresholds of extended high-frequency audiometry in personal listening device users could also be increased even if their hearing thresholds in conventional frequency audiometry were normal. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that long-term use of personal listening devices can impair hearing function The data also indicate that extended high-frequency audiometry is a sensitive method for early detection of noise-induced hearing loss.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations114
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207