MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309161327 · doi:10.1007/s10162-022-00874-y

Low Evidence for Tinnitus Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4309161327 on OpenAlex
Roshni Biswas, Eleni Genitsaridi, Natalia Trpchevska, Alessandra Lugo, Winfried Schlee, Christopher R. Cederroth, Silvano Gallus, Deborah A. Hall

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeKarolinska Institutet
KeywordsTinnitusObservational studyCausality (physics)Psychological interventionSystematic reviewCohortRisk analysis (engineering)MedicinePsychologyMEDLINEAudiologyPathologyPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Identifying risk factors for tinnitus could facilitate not only the recommendations for prevention measures, but also identifying potential pathways for new interventions. This study reports the first comprehensive systematic review of analytical observational studies able to provide information about causality (i.e., case-control and cohort designs). METHODS: A literature search of four electronic databases identified epidemiological studies published on tinnitus and different exposures. Independent raters screened all studies, extracted data, and evaluated study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Reported relative risks (RR), hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR), and prevalence ratios (PR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to compute crude estimates of RR for tinnitus risk factors. RESULTS: From 2389 records identified, a total of 374 articles were read as full text (24 reviews, 301 cross-sectional studies, 42 cohort studies, and 7 case-control studies). However, from 49 case-control and cohort studies, only 25 adequately reported risk ratios. Using the findings from these studies, positive causal associations were found for various hearing-related factors (i.e., unspecified hearing loss, sensorineural hearing loss, occupational noise exposure, ototoxic platinum therapy, and otitis media). Evidence was also found for a number of non-otological risk factors including temporo-mandibular joint disorder, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and hyperlipidemia. Negative associations indicating preventative effects were found for diabetes and high alcohol consumption. No associations were found for low alcohol consumption, body mass index, head injury, heart failure, hypertension, leisure noise exposure, migraine, rheumatoid arthritis, sex, smoking, stroke, and whiplash. However, with the exception of unspecified hearing loss, these findings resulted from pooling no more than 4 studies, illustrating that the vast majority of the associations still remain inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: These systematic review and meta-analysis confirm a number of otological and non-otological risk factors for tinnitus. By highlighting major gaps in knowledge, our synthesis can help provide direction for future research that will shed light on the pathophysiology, improve management strategies, and inform more effective preventions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.187
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.187
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.536
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.019 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it