Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30358656›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Online Machine Learning Audiometry.

Dennis L Barbour, Rebecca T Howard, Xinyu D Song, Nikki Metzger, Kiron A Sukesan, James C DiLorenzo, Braham R D Snyder, Jeff Y Chen, Eleanor A Degen, Jenna M Buchbinder and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Active transfer learning for audiogram estimation.Frontiers in digital health · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Editorial: Digital hearing healthcare.Frontiers in digital health · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Tele-Audiology: Current State and Future Directions.Frontiers in digital health · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dennis L BarbourLaboratory of Sensory Neuroscience and Neuroengineering, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Rebecca T HowardLaboratory of Sensory Neuroscience and Neuroengineering, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Xinyu D SongLaboratory of Sensory Neuroscience and Neuroengineering, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Nikki MetzgerLaboratory of Sensory Neuroscience and Neuroengineering, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Kiron A SukesanLaboratory of Sensory Neuroscience and Neuroengineering, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
James C DiLorenzoLaboratory of Sensory Neuroscience and Neuroengineering, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Braham R D SnyderLaboratory of Sensory Neuroscience and Neuroengineering, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Jeff Y ChenLaboratory of Sensory Neuroscience and Neuroengineering, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Eleanor A DegenLaboratory of Sensory Neuroscience and Neuroengineering, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Jenna M BuchbinderLaboratory of Sensory Neuroscience and Neuroengineering, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Katherine L HeiseyLaboratory of Sensory Neuroscience and Neuroengineering, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Washington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
Interdisciplinary Training in Cognitive, Computational and Systems NeuroscienceT32NS073547 · NINDS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BARBOUR, DENNIS L, PETERSEN, STEVEN E. · 2011 to 2015
$850k
RESEARCH TRAINING FOR CLINICAL AUDIOLOGISTST35DC008765 · NIDCD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI CLARK, WILLIAM WALTER · 2008 to 2018
$369k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345NIDCD NIH HHS T35 DC008765NINDS NIH HHS T32 NS073547
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA confluence of recent developments in cloud computing, real-time web audio and machine learning psychometric function estimation has made wide dissemination of sophisticated turn-key audiometric assessments possible. The authors have combined these capabilities into an online (i.e., web-based) pure-tone audiogram estimator intended to empower researchers and clinicians with advanced hearing tests without the need for custom programming or special hardware. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy and reliability of this new online machine learning audiogram method relative to a commonly used hearing threshold estimation technique also implemented online for the first time in the same platform.

designThe authors performed air conduction pure-tone audiometry on 21 participants between the ages of 19 and 79 years (mean 41, SD 21) exhibiting a wide range of hearing abilities. For each ear, two repetitions of online machine learning audiogram estimation and two repetitions of online modified Hughson-Westlake ascending-descending audiogram estimation were acquired by an audiologist using the online software tools. The estimated hearing thresholds of these two techniques were compared at standard audiogram frequencies (i.e., 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8 kHz).

resultsThe two threshold estimation methods delivered very similar threshold estimates at standard audiogram frequencies. Specifically, the mean absolute difference between threshold estimates was 3.24 ± 5.15 dB. The mean absolute differences between repeated measurements of the online machine learning procedure and between repeated measurements of the Hughson-Westlake procedure were 2.85 ± 6.57 dB and 1.88 ± 3.56 dB, respectively. The machine learning method generated estimates of both threshold and spread (i.e., the inverse of psychometric slope) continuously across the entire frequency range tested from fewer samples on average than the modified Hughson-Westlake procedure required to estimate six discrete thresholds.

conclusionsOnline machine learning audiogram estimation in its current form provides all the information of conventional threshold audiometry with similar accuracy and reliability in less time. More importantly, however, this method provides additional audiogram details not provided by other methods. This standardized platform can be readily extended to bone conduction, masking, spectrotemporal modulation, speech perception, etc., unifying audiometric testing into a single comprehensive procedure efficient enough to become part of the standard audiologic workup.

Indexed as

InternetMachine LearningAdultAgedAudiometry, Pure-ToneFemaleHearing LossHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSeverity of Illness IndexYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30358656
PMCPMC6476703
OpenAlexW2898263307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.