Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 25 years, human and mouse genetics research together has identified several hundred genes essential for mammalian hearing, leading to a greater understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying auditory function. However, from the number of still as yet uncloned human deafness loci and the findings of large-scale mouse mutant screens, it is clear we are still far from identifying all of the genes critical for auditory function. In particular, while we have made great progress in understanding the genetic bases of congenital and early-onset hearing loss (HL), we have only just begun to elaborate upon the genetic landscape of age-related HL. With an aging population and a growing literature suggesting links between age-related HL and neuropsychiatric conditions, such as dementia and depression, understanding the genetics and subsequently the molecular mechanisms underlying this very prevalent condition is of paramount importance. Increased knowledge of genes and molecular pathways required for hearing will ultimately provide the foundation upon which novel therapeutic approaches can be built. Here we discuss the current status of deafness genetics research and the ongoing efforts being undertaken for discovery of novel genes essential for hearing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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".