Does tinnitus affect the cognitive function?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Tinnitus is defined as a subjective auditory phantom phenomenon in which patients hear internal sounds when there is no external source of acoustic stimuli. Tinnitus is a result of a chain of plastic changes which have an effect on the entire auditory system. The aim of this study is to assess the cognitive function in patients with chronic idiopathic tinnitus.Methods: This case-control study included two groups: The control group (32 normal hearing individuals without tinnitus), the study group (32 normal hearing individuals with tinnitus). All individuals in the study had undergone full history taking, full otological examination, basic audiological evaluation, Arabic version of tinnitus handicap inventory (THI), Arabic version of Beck anxiety inventory (BAI), Arabic version of Montreal cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and electrophysiological tests (P300 and MMN). Results: No significant differences were found between the two groups as regards age and sex distribution. Patients with tinnitus had statically significant delayed P300 latencies compared to the control group. No significant differences were found regarding P300 amplitude, MMN amplitude and latency between the studied groups. In the tinnitus group, there were significant positive correlations between THI scores and both BAI scores and P300 latencies (P value <0.05) and significant positive correlations between P300 latencies and BAI scores (correlation coefficient r=0.87, P value = 0.000) while significant negative correlations between P300 latencies and MoCA scores (correlation coefficient r=-0.78, P value= 0.000) were noted.Conclusion: Tinnitus patients have impaired cognitive functions which are correlated to the severity of tinnitus and the degree of anxiety. The P300 test can be a useful test for objective evaluation of patients with tinnitus and to assess the cognitive function of tinnitus patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".