MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388672456 · doi:10.2196/44703

App-Based Hearing Screenings in Preschool Children With Different Types of Headphones: Diagnostic Study

2023· article· en· W4388672456 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pornsek Tananuchittikul, Kwanchanok Yimtae, Nichtima Chayaopas, Panida Thanawirattananit, Pornthep Kasemsiri, Patorn Piromchai

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Electronics and Computer Technology CenterKhon Kaen University
KeywordsHeadphonesAudiologyAudiometryMedicineHearing lossGold standard (test)Test (biology)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hearing disability in preschool children can delay or impact oral communication and social skills. Provision of hearing screening tests by standard audiometry in low- to middle-income countries is problematic due to a lack of pediatric audiologists, standard hearing equipment, and standard soundproof rooms. Therefore, an innovative hearing screening tool that is easily accessible and inexpensive such as a mobile app should be considered. Headphones have been a crucial part of hearing screenings. Audiometric headphones, which serve as the reference standard, have been used in most studies. However, since audiometric headphones are not accessible in rural areas, we hypothesized that generic headphones can also be used in hearing screenings. Objective: This study aimed to determine the sensitivity, specificity, κ coefficiency, and time consumption of the PASS-Pro (Preschool Audiometry Screening System-Pro) app when using TDH39 headphones, Beyerdynamic DT 770 PRO headphones, and generic earmuff headphones compared to standard conditioned play audiometry. Methods: We recruited preschool children aged 4 to 5 years to participate in this study. The children received 3 PASS-Pro screening tests using different types of headphones in a quiet room and 1 standard conditioned play audiometry in a soundproof room. All tests were administered in random order. The agreement coefficient, sensitivity, specificity, and mean test duration were determined. Results: A total of 44 children participated in this study. For mild hearing loss screening, the κ coefficients between standard conditioned play audiometry and the PASS-Pro app using TDH39 headphones, Beyerdynamic DT 770 PRO headphones, and generic earmuff headphones were 0.195, 0.290, and 0.261 (P=.02, P=.002, and P=.004), respectively. The sensitivity for all headphones was 50% and the specificity was more than 88%. For moderate hearing loss screening, the κ coefficients were 0.206, 0.272, and 0.235 (all Ps=.001), respectively. The sensitivity for all headphones was 100% and the specificity was more than 92%. There were no statistical differences in sensitivity and specificity between the reference headphone (TDH39), Beyerdynamic DT 770 PRO headphone, and generic earmuff headphones (all Ps >.05). The PASS-Pro app used significantly less time to carry out hearing tests than conditioned play audiometry (P<.001). Conclusions: The PASS-Pro app, used with generic headphones, is effective for conducting hearing screening tests in preschool children with high sensitivity and specificity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→