On the Use of Machine Learning for Classifying Auditory Brainstem Responses: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in machine learning have led to a surge of interest in classification of the auditory brainstem response. In this work, we conducted a search in the PubMed, Google Scholar, SpringerLink, ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases, and identified twelve studies that explored the use of machine learning to classify the auditory brainstem response as a complementary and objective method to (a) help clinicians better diagnose hearing impairment by discerning between healthy and pathological auditory brainstem response waveforms, (b) present a neural marker for potential applications in hearing aid tuning, and (c) provide a biometric marker for discriminating between subjects. A comparison between the studies presented in this review is not possible as they used different test subjects, group sizes, and stimuli, and evaluated auditory brainstem response differently. Instead, the result of these studies will be presented and their limitations as well as their potential applications will be discussed. Overall, the findings of these studies suggest that ABR classification using machine learning is a promising tool for assessing patients with hearing loss, optimizing technologies for tuning hearing aids, and discriminating between subjects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".