Hearing Rehabilitation With a Chat-Based Mobile Auditory Training Program in Experienced Hearing Aid Users: Prospective Randomized Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hearing rehabilitation with auditory training (AT) is necessary to improve speech perception ability in patients with hearing loss. However, face-to-face AT has not been widely implemented due to its high cost and personnel requirements. Therefore, there is a need for the development of a patient-friendly, mobile-based AT program. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of hearing rehabilitation with our chat-based mobile AT (CMAT) program for speech perception performance among experienced hearing aid (HA) users. METHODS: A total of 42 adult patients with hearing loss who had worn bilateral HAs for more than 3 months were enrolled and randomly allocated to the AT or control group. In the AT group, CMAT was performed for 30 minutes a day for 2 months, while no intervention was provided in the control group. During the study, 2 patients from the AT group and 1 patient from the control group dropped out. At 0-, 1- and 2-month visits, results of hearing tests and speech perception tests, compliance, and questionnaires were prospectively collected and compared in the 2 groups. RESULTS: The AT group (n=19) showed better improvement in word and sentence perception tests compared to the control group (n=20; P=.04 and P=.03, respectively), while no significant difference was observed in phoneme and consonant perception tests (both P>.05). All participants were able to use CMAT without any difficulties, and 85% (17/20) of the AT group completed required training sessions. There were no changes in time or completion rate between the first and the second month of AT. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in questionnaire surveys. CONCLUSIONS: After using the CMAT program, word and sentence perception performance was significantly improved in experienced HA users. In addition, CMAT showed high compliance and adherence over the 2-month study period. Further investigations are needed to validate long-term efficacy in a larger population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service (CRiS) KCT0006509; https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do?seq=22110&search_page=L.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".