Tinnitus and distress: an electroencephalography classification study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There exist no objective markers for tinnitus or tinnitus disorders, which complicates diagnosis and treatments. The combination of EEG with sophisticated classification procedures may reveal biomarkers that can identify tinnitus and accurately differentiate different levels of distress experienced by patients. EEG recordings were obtained from 129 tinnitus patients and 142 healthy controls. Linear support vector machines were used to develop two classifiers: the first differentiated tinnitus patients from controls, while the second differentiated tinnitus patients with low and high distress levels. The classifier for healthy controls and tinnitus patients performed with an average accuracy of 96 and 94% for the training and test sets, respectively. For the distress classifier, these average accuracies were 89 and 84%. Minimal overlap was observed between the features of the two classifiers. EEG-derived features made it possible to accurately differentiate healthy controls and tinnitus patients as well as low and high distress tinnitus patients. The minimal overlap between the features of the two classifiers indicates that the source of distress in tinnitus, which could also be involved in distress related to other conditions, stems from different neuronal mechanisms compared to those causing the tinnitus pathology itself.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".