Systematic Audiological Assessment of Auditory Functioning in Patients With Parkinson's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Alterations in primary auditory functioning have been reported in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). Despite the current findings, the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying these alterations remain unclear, and the effect of dopaminergic medication on auditory functioning in PD has been explored insufficiently. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically investigate primary auditory functioning in patients with PD by using both subjective and objective audiological measurements. Method In this case-control study, 25 patients with PD and 25 age-, gender-, and education-matched healthy controls underwent an audiological test battery consisting of tonal audiometry, short increment sensitivity index, otoacoustic emissions (OAEs), and speech audiometry. Patients with PD were tested in the on- and off-medication states. Results Increased OAE amplitudes were found when patients with PD were tested without dopaminergic medication. In addition, speech audiometry in silence and multitalker babble noise demonstrated higher phoneme scores for patients with PD in the off-medication condition. The results showed no differences in auditory functioning between patients with PD in the on-medication condition and healthy controls. No effect of disease stage or motor score was evident. Conclusions This study provides evidence for a top-down involvement in auditory processing in PD at both central and peripheral levels. Most important, the increase in OAE amplitude in the off-medication condition in PD is hypothesized to be linked to a dysfunction of the olivocochlear efferent system, which is known to have an inhibitory effect on outer hair cell functioning. Future studies may clarify whether OAEs may facilitate an early diagnosis of PD.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".