ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Performance Comparison of Convolutional Neural Network-Based Hearing Loss Classification Model Using Auditory Brainstem Response Data.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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.
- Origins of the Auditory Brainstem Response in Mice Using Source Localization of Topographic Multichannel EEG.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluates the efficacy of several Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) models for the classification of hearing loss in patients using preprocessed auditory brainstem response (ABR) image data. Specifically, we employed six CNN architectures-VGG16, VGG19, DenseNet121, DenseNet-201, AlexNet, and InceptionV3-to differentiate between patients with hearing loss and those with normal hearing. A dataset comprising 7990 preprocessed ABR images was utilized to assess the performance and accuracy of these models. Each model was systematically tested to determine its capability to accurately classify hearing loss. A comparative analysis of the models focused on metrics of accuracy and computational efficiency. The results indicated that the AlexNet model exhibited superior performance, achieving an accuracy of 95.93%. The findings from this research suggest that deep learning models, particularly AlexNet in this instance, hold significant potential for automating the diagnosis of hearing loss using ABR graph data. Future work will aim to refine these models to enhance their diagnostic accuracy and efficiency, fostering their practical application in clinical settings.
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.