Occupational Noise Exposure, Bilateral High-Frequency Hearing Loss, and Blood Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationships between occupational noise exposure and blood pressure using self-reported occupational exposure and bilateral high-frequency hearing loss. METHODS: This study included 4548 participants aged 20 to 69 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999 to 2004. On the basis of self-reported exposure status, participants were divided into the current, former, or never exposed groups. Bilateral high-frequency hearing loss was defined as the average high-frequency hearing threshold at least 25 dB in both ears. RESULTS: The currently exposed participants had slightly increased diastolic blood pressure compared with those never exposed. Among previously exposed participants, those with bilateral high-frequency hearing loss had increased systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and the prevalence of hypertension compared with those with normal high-frequency hearing. CONCLUSION: Although there were some significant results, the evidence was not consistent to support the associations between occupational noise exposure and blood pressure.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".