Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tinnitus, which has no cure, can be a temporary irritant or a life-altering condition. Many factors can precipitate tinnitus, including hearing loss, exposure to loud noise and other otologic causes, neurological injuries or disease, dental disorders, some medications, and certain infectious diseases. This study summarizes new tinnitus data from the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS). DATA AND METHODS: Data were collected for individuals aged 19 to 79 years (n=6,571) from 2012 through 2015 as part of the CHMS. Tinnitus is described as "the presence of hissing, buzzing, ringing, rushing or roaring sounds in your ears when there is no other sound around you." Bothersome tinnitus refers to tinnitus affecting sleep, concentration or mood. Factors associated with tinnitus were examined using bivariate and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: An estimated 37% of adult Canadians (9.2 million) had experienced tinnitus in the past year; it was bothersome for 7% of the population. Individuals aged 19 to 29 were significantly more likely to have past-year tinnitus (46%) than those aged 30 to 49 (33%) and 50 to 70 (35%). Tinnitus was associated with poor self-reported mental health, mood disorder, a weak sense of community belonging, high daily stress and poor quality sleep. People with hearing loss and tinnitus were twice as likely as those with hearing loss alone to use hearing aids, at 11% compared with 5% respectively. DISCUSSION: Tinnitus is a common condition among Canadian adults. Recent exposure to loud noise may contribute to the higher prevalence of past-year tinnitus at younger ages. Canadians could benefit from greater awareness of tinnitus, prevention strategies and management options.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.005 |
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".