MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313055198 · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3215972

Audiogram Digitization Tool for Audiological Reports

2022· article· en· W4313055198 on OpenAlexafffundabout
François Charih, James R. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersWorkplace Safety and Insurance Board
KeywordsAudiogramComputer scienceDigitizationAdjudicationAnnotationProcess (computing)Noise (video)Speech recognitionArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsHearing lossAudiologyMedicineProgramming languageLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple private and public insurers compensate workers whose hearing loss can be directly attributed to excessive exposure to noise in the workplace. The claim assessment process is typically lengthy and requires significant effort from human adjudicators who must interpret hand-recorded audiograms, often sent via fax or equivalent. In this work, we present a solution developed in partnership with the Workplace Safety Insurance Board of Ontario to streamline the adjudication process. We present a flexible and open-source audiogram digitization algorithm capable of automatically extracting the hearing thresholds from a scanned or faxed audiology report as a proof-of-concept. The algorithm extracts most thresholds within 5 dB accuracy, allowing to substantially lessen the time required to convert an audiogram into digital format in a semi-supervised fashion, and is a first step towards the automation of the adjudication process. The source code for the digitization algorithm and a desktop-based implementation of our NIHL annotation portal is publicly available on GitHub <uri xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">https://github.com/GreenCUBIC/AudiogramDigitization</uri> .

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207