MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531340995 · doi:10.1177/0003489416671333

The Effect of Age and History of Recurrent Otitis Media on Dichotic Listening and Verbal Memory in Children

2016· article· en· W2531340995 on OpenAlexaff
Zahra Jafari, Saeed Malayeri, Elahe Bahramian

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Otology Rhinology & Laryngology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDichotic listeningActive listeningAudiologyOtitisVerbal memoryPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineCognitionPsychiatryCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To explore the possible effects of recurrent otitis media (ROM) in early childhood on binaural processing and verbal memory in school-aged children. METHODS: Two hundred eleven children, including 31 children with and 180 children without a history of ROM, were examined. A dichotic digit test (DDT) and a forward and backward digit memory span test (DMST) were administered. RESULTS: A significant difference was observed between age groups among ROM-free children. The ROM-positive group earned significantly poorer results than the ROM-free group in all measurements, except for the right DDT (rDDT) score. Furthermore, a significant correlation was found between the DDT and EA scores with both DMST scores in the ROM-free group. The correlation between the rDDT and forward DMST scores was not significant in the ROM-positive group, and no significant correlation was observed between the EA score and either DMST score. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support that a history of OM in early childhood based on a parental survey of children is associated with differences in DDT and DMST outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Otology Rhinology & LaryngologySame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207