Changes in the Prevalence and Characteristics of Hearing Loss in a Noise-Exposed Population Between 1980 and 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Updated regulations, improved noise reduction, and increased use of hearing protective devices (HPDs) may result in better hearing for noise-exposed workers. In a retrospective longitudinal (1980-2015) cohort study, we conducted a secondary analysis of a database of annual hearing tests from noise-exposed workers aged 20-55 years old. Sample size per cohort ranged from n=1386 to n=5165. No clinically-meaningful cohort differences in thresholds of 5 dB or greater were found for 20- or 30-year olds. For 45- and 55-year olds, later-born cohorts had better thresholds than earlier-born cohorts. Prevalence of hearing loss decreased for later-born cohorts for 30, 45, and 55-year olds. Twenty-year olds in later cohorts were more likely to use HPD than those in earlier cohorts. The lower prevalence of hearing loss and better thresholds in these noise-exposed workers may be due to increased HPD use, changes in workplace regulations, improved workplace noise control, or changed attitudes towards recreational noise exposure.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".