Asymmetric hearing loss is associated with altered white matter mesostructure and cortical measures in temporal and occipital regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To explore the differences in gray and white matter integrity between patients with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) and normal-hearing controls (NH) using structural MRI and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). Methods Nine right-handed adults with left AHL and 12 matched NH controls received 3.0 T-MRI of the brain. CAT-12 derived tissue probability values of gray matter (GM) in the temporal, occipital and postcentral cortex were measured. Microstructure was assessed with DTI-derived fractional anisotropy (FA) in temporal, occipital and postcentral white matter regions. For group comparison, the asymmetry index (AI) for FA/GM was calculated: ipsi- minus contralateral divided by their mean. Negative AI reflect higher values in the ipsilateral region and positive AI reflect higher values in the contralateral region. Results Significantly higher FA-AI was found in the middle temporal region in AHL than NH (mean -0.03 vs. -0.07; p=0.02). The GM-AI of the inferior temporal cortex in AHL was significantly increased compared to NH (mean 0.07 vs. 0.04, p=0.02). A trend level higher GM-AI of the middle temporal cortex was seen in AHL (mean 0.07 vs. 0.05, p=0.08). In the superior occipital cortex, the GM-AI was significantly higher in AHL than NH (mean 0.0006 vs. -0.07; p=0.02). Conclusion Our results suggest that left AHL results in a reduction of FA-AI of the right middle temporal region, which indicates an increased connectivity contralateral to the more hearing-impaired ear. This might be due to cross-modal plasticity as we observed a loss of asymmetry in the superior occipital lobe in AHL, whereas in both NH and AHL the right inferior temporal cortex GM values were higher, but more pronounced in AHL. This could reflect the increased connectivity of the temporal region. Berta-Ottenstein-Programme für Clinician Scientists, Universität Freiburg und Taube Kinder lernen hören! Gesellschaft zur Förderung des Implant Centrum Freiburg e.V. Publication History Article published online: 12 May 2023 Georg Thieme Verlag Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".