Prevalence of somatosensory tinnitus in individuals with tinnitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Somatosensory tinnitus is a form of tinnitus that can be influenced or triggered by sensory, motor, and visual-motor systems. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of somatosensory tinnitus in individuals with tinnitus using a rapid screening tool and to investigate potential gender differences. Methods A total of 132 participants, aged between 18 and 65, were recruited for the study. All participants underwent standard audiological assessments, as well as evaluations using the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) and the rapid screening tool for somatosensory tinnitus (RaSST). Results The study found a significant prevalence of somatosensory tinnitus at 23.48%. Among the 31 identified cases, 70.7% were females, and 29.3% were males, suggesting a gender disparity in the prevalence of somatosensory tinnitus. Conclusions The findings highlight the need for further research into somatosensory tinnitus and its clinical implications. It is crucial to differentiate between somatosensory tinnitus and other types of tinnitus. The study emphasizes integrating somatosensory tinnitus screening into routine clinical practice.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".