Subjektif Tinnituslu Bireylerin Çok Yönlü Değerlendirilerek Yönetim Protokolünün Hazırlanması
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to form a "tinnitus management protocol" according to the tinnitus levels by evaluating the subjects with subjective tinnitus by evaluating the multifactorial approach principle based on emotion, cognition, quality of life, sleep and decreased sound tolerance criteria. 145 subjects aged between 18-64 (45 ± 11, 78 M, 67 F) were included in the study. Tinnitus Assessment Form, Short Form-36, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), STAI-D, STAI-S, Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA), Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), Hearing Handicap Inventory (HHI), Pitsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Khalfa Hyperacusis Questionnaire were applied after audiological evaluation. In the evaluation of tinnitus, psychoacoustic measurements (loudness, picth matching, minimal masking level and residual inhibition) were performed. As a result of statistical analysis, PSQI, STAI-S and STAI-D scores were higher than normal limit values independent of tinnitus level. When the relationship between severity of tinnitus and BDI was examined, it was found that there was an increase in depression scores at severe / catastrophic levels. As the severity of tinnitus increased, the quality of life subscales decreased. As a result of the comparison of the tinnitus levels and PSQI sub-dimensions, it was determined that severe / catastrophic levels had worse scores in sleep disturbances, general sleep quality and sleep latency than the other three level (Kruskal-Wallis p <0.05). When the scores of 75 individuals with hearing loss and tinnitus complaints were compared, there was a moderate significant correlation between the HHI and THI scores (r=0.598, p=0.00). A significant relationship was found between asymmetric high frequency hearing loss and localization of tinnitus. This study demonstrated the presence of level-related factors for subjective tinnitus assessment. As a result, according to the severity (level) of tinnitus; three different protocols were prepared: very mild / mild, moderate and severe / catastrophic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".