Concentration, motivation, activity, and subjective fatigue in patients with single-sided deafness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate four dimensions of fatigue, including subjective fatigue severity, concentration problems, reduced motivation, and activity in patients with single-sided deafness. METHODS: Following audiological assessment, the Checklist Individual Strength scale and Montreal Cognitive Assessment were performed on 41 adults with single-sided deafness and 41 sex-matched adults with normal bilateral hearing in the study group and control group, respectively. Subjective fatigue severity, concentration, motivation, activity level and cognitive performance were analysed between and within groups. RESULTS: Individuals with single-sided deafness exhibited reduced concentration and motivation; however, their activity level was average. Subjective fatigue symptoms were more prevalent in individuals with single-sided deafness than in control participants. The concentration problem was related to decreased cognitive performance. CONCLUSION: This study revealed negative somatic consequences of single-sided deafness. Self-perceived fatigue is likely underestimated in this population due to the limited studies reported in the literature. Further studies should focus on counselling, follow up and hearing rehabilitation concerning ameliorating fatigue.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".