A Retrospective Study of the Effects of Traumatic Brain Injury on Auditory Function: From a Clinical Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The main purpose of this retrospective study was to identify auditory dysfunctions related to traumatic brain injury (TBI) in individuals evaluated in an Audiology clinic. METHOD: Peripheral and central auditory evaluations were performed from March 2014 to June 2018 in 26 patients (14 males) with TBI. The age of the participants ranged from 9 to 59 years old (34.24 ± 15.21). Six participants had blast-related TBI and 20 had blunt force TBI. Sixteen experienced a single TBI event whereas ten experienced several. Correlation analyses were performed to verify the relationship, if any, between the number of auditory tests failed and the number, type, and severity of TBIs. RESULT: All participants failed at least one auditory test. Nearly 60% had abnormal results on degraded speech tests (compressed and echoed, filtered or in background noise) and 25% had a high frequency hearing loss. There was no statistically significant correlation between the number of auditory tests failed and the number, type, and severity of TBIs. CONCLUSION: Results indicated negative and heterogenous effects of TBI on peripheral and central auditory function and highlighted the need for a more extensive auditory assessment in individuals with TBI.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".