A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Two Self-Fit Methods to the Best-Practices Method of Hearing Aid Fitting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TRIAL DESIGN: This is a randomized multisite noninferiority comparative-effectiveness clinical trial with three parallel branches comparing a best-practices audiologist-fit method to two experimental self-fit (person-fit) methods. Outcomes were measured at 6 weeks and 6 months post-fit. METHOD: Participants: Five hundred eighty-four participants met the following inclusion criteria and enrolled: (a) age between 50 and 79 years; (b) never used or tried hearing aids previously; (c) can speak, read, and understand English well; (d) willing to purchase the study hearing aids for $650/pair; (e) no diagnosis of a memory or cognitive impairment; (f) 25-item Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) score > 4; (g) Montreal Cognitive Assessment score ≥ 23; and (h) not excluded due to specific audiometric criteria. The audiometric exclusion criteria, based on air-conduction pure-tone thresholds, were as follows: (a) thresholds at all frequencies (250-8000 Hz) < 20 dB HL, for both ears (no hearing loss); (b) pure-tone average for 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz (PTA4) in the better ear > 50 dB HL (greater than moderate hearing loss); and (c) interaural difference > 20 dB at three or more frequencies or ≥ 40 dB at 500 or 1000 Hz. Interventions: Three groups received the same hearing aids fitted either by an audiologist using best practices (Group AB) or by themselves using one of two efficacious self-fit methods (Groups CD and EF). Objectives: The effectiveness of each of the self-fit methods, CD and EF, was hypothesized to be noninferior to the professional-fit method, AB. Outcomes: The primary outcome measure was the global score from the Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (PHAB), and the secondary outcome measure was the benefit score (unaided - aided) for the 25-item HHIE. Randomization: Participants were stratified into one of three hearing loss categories based on better-ear PTA4: normal (≤ 20 dB HL), mild (20.1-35 dB HL), or moderate (35.1-50 dB HL). The random assignment of sequential enrollees within each hearing loss category to the three treatment groups made use of a site-specific pregenerated randomization list produced from a random-numbers table. Blinding: It was not possible to blind the participants as to the fitting method used, but the research personnel assessing the outcomes were blinded to the treatment group. RESULTS: = 201). > .05) for the primary or secondary outcome measures. Harms: No significant adverse events or side effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: At both the 6-week and 6-month postfit intervals, each of the two self-fit methods (CD, EF) yielded outcomes (primary and secondary) that were noninferior to the professional-fit best-practices (AB) fitting method. In addition, on average, clinically meaningful benefit was provided regardless of the fitting method. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28585145.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".