Risk of tinnitus in patients with sleep apnea: A nationwide, population‐based, case‐control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the risk of tinnitus in patients with sleep disturbance or sleep apnea. STUDY DESIGN: Case control study. METHODS: We identified 21,798 middle-aged and elderly patients with otolaryngologist-diagnosed tinnitus between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2012, from the Longitudinal Health Insurance Database 2000 of the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. A total of 108,990 controls were also identified from the same database based on frequency-matching on 10-year age interval, sex, and year of index date of the cases. Diagnoses of sleep disturbance (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] codes 780.50, 780.52, 307.4) and sleep apnea (ICD-9-CM codes 780.51, 780.53, 780.57) in the cases and controls prior to the index date were assessed. The risks of tinnitus in patients with sleep disturbance and sleep apnea were separately evaluated with multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The mean age of the total 130,788 patients was 59.8 years, and 47% of them were males. The risk of tinnitus was higher in patients with sleep disturbance compared to those without the condition (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] [95% CI] = 1.11-1.17), and the risk of tinnitus was higher in patients with sleep apnea compared to those without the condition (adjusted OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.16-1.60). CONCLUSION: In this population-based, case-control study, the risk of tinnitus was found to be significantly higher among middle-aged and elderly Taiwanese patients with sleep disturbances, especially with sleep apnea. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3b. Laryngoscope, 127:2171-2175, 2017.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".