ArticlePloS one2021
Predicting speech discrimination scores from pure-tone thresholds-A machine learning-based approach using data from 12,697 subjects.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Hearing preservation of post-radiotherapy for acoustic neuroma-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Development and Validation of a Psychometric Tool for Disability Assessment in Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder.Cureus · 2025Article
- Predictors of Speech-in-Noise Understanding in a Population of Occupationally Noise-Exposed Individuals.Biology · 2024Article
- A novel approach for estimating initial sound level for speech reception threshold test.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnostic tests for hearing impairment not only determines the presence (or absence) of hearing loss, but also evaluates its degree and type, and provides physicians with essential data for future treatment and rehabilitation. Therefore, accurately measuring hearing loss conditions is very important for proper patient understanding and treatment. In current-day practice, to quantify the level of hearing loss, physicians exploit specialized test scores such as the pure-tone audiometry (PTA) thresholds and speech discrimination scores (SDS) as quantitative metrics in examining a patient's auditory function. However, given that these metrics can be easily affected by various human factors, which includes intentional (or accidental) patient intervention, there are needs to cross validate the accuracy of each metric. By understanding a "normal" relationship between the SDS and PTA, physicians can reveal the need for re-testing, additional testing in different dimensions, and also potential malingering cases. For this purpose, in this work, we propose a prediction model for estimating the SDS of a patient by using PTA thresholds via a Random Forest-based machine learning approach to overcome the limitations of the conventional statistical (or even manual) methods. For designing and evaluating the Random Forest-based prediction model, we collected a large-scale dataset from 12,697 subjects, and report a SDS level prediction accuracy of 95.05% and 96.64% for the left and right ears, respectively. We also present comparisons with other widely-used machine learning algorithms (e.g., Support Vector Machine, Multi-layer Perceptron) to show the effectiveness of our proposed Random Forest-based approach. Results obtained from this study provides implications and potential feasibility in providing a practically-applicable screening tool for identifying patient-intended malingering in hearing loss-related tests.
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.