Reliability of an extended version of the 3m™ Eargage tool to assess earcanal size and assist earplug selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Evaluate the ability of an extended version of the 3 MTM Eargage to estimate the earcanal size and assess the likelihood that a particular earplug can fit an individual’s earcanal, ultimately serving as a tool for selecting earplugs in the field.Design Earcanal morphology, assessed through earcanal earmolds scans, is compared to earcanal size assessed with the extended eargage (EE) via box plots and Pearson linear correlations coefficients. Relations between attenuation measured on participants (for 6 different earplugs) and their earcanal size assessed with the EE are established via comparison tests.Study sample 121 participants exposed to occupational noise (103 men, 18 women, mean age 47 years).Results The earcanal size assessed with the EE allows for estimating the area of the earcanal’s first bend cross-section (correlation coefficient r = 0.533, p < 0.001). Extremely large earcanals (12.7% of earcanals in our sample) lead to significantly lower earplug attenuation (potentially inadequate) than smaller earcanals.Conclusions The EE is a simple and inexpensive tool easily deployable in the field to assist earplugs selection. When extended with sizes larger than the maximum size of the commercial tool, it allows for detecting individuals with extremely large earcanals who are most likely to be under-protected.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".