Can Uhear me now? Validation of an iPod-based hearing loss screening test.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the uHear iPod-based application as a test for hearing loss. METHODS: We recruited 100 adult participants through a single otology practice. Patients with otorrhea and cognitive impairment were excluded. All patients completed the uHear test in the clinic and in the sound booth and underwent a standard audiogram by the same audiologist. We compared the results of the uHear test to the standard audiogram. RESULTS: The uHear was able to correctly diagnose the presence of hearing loss (pure-tone average [PTA] > 40 dB) with a sensitivity of 98% (95% CI = 89-100), a specificity of 82% (95% CI = 75-88), and a positive likelihood ratio of 9 (95% CI = 6.0-16). Compared to the audiogram, the uHear overestimated the PTA among all ears by 14 dB in the clinic and by 8 dB in the sound booth (p < .0001). Compared to the audiogram, the uHear overestimated the PTA among ears with hearing loss by 6 dB in the clinic and by 4 dB in the sound booth. CONCLUSIONS: The uHear application is a reasonable screening test to rule out moderate hearing loss (PTA > 40 dB) and and is valid at quantifying the degree of hearing loss in patients known to have abnormal hearing.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".