Association of 15 common dietary factors with tinnitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective A systematic analysis was conducted to investigate the association between tinnitus incidence and daily dietary patterns. Design We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Data sources The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inception to 25 May 2024. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies We included observational studies from peer-reviewed English-language journals that examined tinnitus presence or severity in adults aged 18 years or older, including associated prevalence estimates. Data extraction and synthesis Data extraction was independently conducted by two evaluators, who assessed research bias using the Agency for Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and applied evidence classification criteria for aggregate grade strength assessment. This study adhered to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Project (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and Meta-Analysis of Epidemiological Observational Studies, as well as the PROSPERO Registry protocols. A mixed-effect model combined maximum adjusted estimates, with heterogeneity measured using the I 2 statistic. Sensitivity analysis validated the robustness of the analysis, and publication bias was assessed qualitatively and quantitatively. Results A total of 10 retrospective studies were identified and included in this analysis, with the last eight studies incorporated into the meta-analysis. Fifteen dietary factors were examined. Fruit intake, dietary fibre, caffeine and dairy product consumption were negatively correlated with tinnitus incidence (OR=0.649 (95% CI 0.532, 0.793), p<0.0001), (OR=0.918 (95% CI 0.851, 0.990), p=0.03), (OR=0.898 (95% CI 0.862, 0.935), p<0.00001), (OR=0.827 (95% CI 0.766, 0.892), p<0.00001), respectively. A sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the findings. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest a link between particular dietary elements and a lower incidence of tinnitus. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023493856.
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 | 0.029 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".