The Significance of Audiometric Notching in Individuals With a History of Noise Exposure: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The diagnosis of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is reliant on the appraisal of audiometric data. A notch, dip or bulge, centered at the 4-kHz frequency is considered to be pathognomonic. However, guidelines applied to assist the diagnosis of NIHL often allow for a notch centered between the 3- and 6-kHz frequencies. The primary outcome of this review is to document the relationship between audiometric notching at particular frequencies and the populations in which they have been identified. DESIGN: We included all population-based studies, cohort, cross-sectional, case-control, case-series, and case reports of adults and children, with exposure to noise and with a notch, dip or bulge. The review has been registered with Prospero (Registration: CRD42017079901) and prepared in line with the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: We included 84 articles in the final systematic review. There were a total of 1,438,987 individuals, aged 7 to 80 years old. The studies were conducted in 26 different countries. Fourteen studies identified notching at 3 kHz, 63 studies identified notching at 4 kHz, and 47 studies identified notching at 6 kHz. The Newcastle-Ottawa risk assessment tool was performed on 82 of the studies emphasizing the high risk of bias in observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: The overwhelming outcome of this systematic review demonstrates that the relationship between noise exposure and a 3- to 6-kHz audiometric notch is not straight-forward. A handful of articles have displayed a clear association between an individual's noise exposure and an audiometric notch. Unilateral notches, notches observed at 3 kHz and notches in the absence of continued high-intensity noise exposure must be scrutinized thoroughly. The ambiguous nature of NIHL directs its continued interest.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".