Cognitive Evaluation and Quality of Life Assessment in Patients with Subjective Tinnitus.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the effects of subjective tinnitus on cognitive functions. Methods: There were 15 patients (10 bilateral, 5 unilateral) with tinnitus who were non-psychiatric in the study group. There were 14 controls (28 ears of them) that were healthy, non-psychiatric and did not have tinnitus. We used questionnaire form; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD); The SF-36 Health Survey; and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test to evaluate cognitive functions of the subjects. Results: In tinnitus patients, all HAD results (HAD-depression, HAD-anxiety and HAD-total) were insignificantly higher; and all SF-36 items were lower than the control group. In tinnitus group, MoCA scores (mean: 22.28 ± 3.90) were significantly lower then the control group (mean = 26.07 ± 1.74). In tinnitus group, higher MoCA scores were related to increased role limitations due to emotional problems (RE) and physical functioning (PF) values. As subjective tinnitus loudness level (STLL) values increased, HAD-Anxiety values increased and social functioning (SF) values were decreased. In well educated tinnitus patients, MoCA scores found significantly increased. Better Quality of life (QoL) results were found with better MoCA scores. The most important SF-36 items were PF, RE and social functioning (SF). Conclusion: Subjective tinnitus had negative impact not only in quality of life, but also in cognitive function of the patients. © 2016, Neurological Society R.O.C (Taiwan). All rights reserved.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".