MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156952779 · doi:10.1001/jama.295.4.416

Does This Patient Have Hearing Impairment?

2006· review· en· W2156952779 on OpenAlexaff
Akshay Bagai

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAudiologyConfidence intervalAudiometryHearing lossMEDLINEPopulationTest (biology)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Hearing impairment is prevalent among the elderly population but commonly underdiagnosed. OBJECTIVE: To review the accuracy and precision of bedside clinical maneuvers for diagnosing hearing impairment. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (1966 to April 2005) were searched for English-language articles related to screening for hearing impairment. STUDY SELECTION: Original studies on the accuracy or precision of screening questions and tests were included. Articles that used unaccepted reference standards or contained insufficient data were excluded. Medical Subject Headings or keywords used in the search included hearing loss, hearing handicap, hearing tests, tuning fork, deafness, physical examination, sensitivity, specificity, audiometry, tuning fork tests, Rinne, Weber, audioscope, Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening version, whispered voice test, sensorineural, and conductive. DATA EXTRACTION: One author screened all potential articles and 2 authors independently abstracted data. Differences were resolved by consensus. Each included study (n = 24) was assigned a methodological grade. DATA SYNTHESIS: A yes response when asking individuals whether they have hearing impairment has a summary likelihood ratio (LR) of 2.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-3.6); a no response has an LR of 0.13 (95% CI, 0.09-0.19). A score of 8 or greater on the screening version of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE-S) has an LR of 3.8 (95% CI, 3.0-4.8); a score less than 8 has an LR of 0.38 (95% CI, 0.29-0.51). An abnormal Weber tuning fork test response has an LR of 1.6 (95% CI, 1.0-2.3); a normal response has an LR of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.0). An abnormal Rinne tuning fork test response has LRs ranging from 2.7 to 62; a normal response has LRs from 0.01 to 0.85. Inability to perceive a whispered voice has an LR of 6.1 (95% CI, 4.5-8.4); normal perception has an LR of 0.03 (95% CI, 0-0.24). Not passing the audioscope test has an LR of 2.4 (95% CI, 1.4-4.1); passing has an LR of 0.07 (95% CI, 0.03-0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly individuals who acknowledge they have hearing impairment require audiometry, while those who reply no should be screened with the whispered-voice test. Individuals who perceive the whispered voice require no further testing, while those unable to perceive the voice require audiometry. The Weber and Rinne tests should not be used for general screening.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations205
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207