ArticleTrends in hearing
Objective Assessment System for Hearing Prediction Based on Stimulus-Frequency Otoacoustic Emissions.
Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Early detection and management of hearing loss to improve the quality of life.Asian biomedicine : research, reviews and news · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions (SFOAEs) can be useful tools for assessing cochlear function noninvasively. However, there is a lack of reports describing their utility in predicting hearing capabilities. Data for model training were collected from 245 and 839 ears with normal hearing and sensorineural hearing loss, respectively. Based on SFOAEs, this study developed an objective assessment system consisting of three mutually independent modules, with the routine test module and the fast test module used for threshold prediction and the hearing screening module for identifying hearing loss. Results evaluated via cross-validation show that the routine test module and the fast test module predict hearing thresholds with similar performance from 0.5 to 8 kHz, with mean absolute errors of 7.06-11.61 dB for the routine module and of 7.40-12.60 dB for the fast module. However, the fast module involves less test time than is needed in the routine module. The hearing screening module identifies hearing status with a large area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.912-0.985), high accuracy (88.4-95.9%), and low false negative rate (2.9-7.0%) at 0.5-8 kHz. The three modules are further validated on unknown data, and the results are similar to those obtained through cross-validation, indicating these modules can be well generalized to new data. Both the routine module and fast module are potential tools for predicting hearing thresholds. However, their prediction performance in ears with hearing loss requires further improvement to facilitate their clinical utility. The hearing screening module shows promise as a clinical tool for identifying hearing loss.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.