ArticleTrends in hearing
Performance and Reliability Evaluation of an Automated Bone-Conduction Audiometry Using Machine Learning.
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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Based Measurement Tools for Intrinsic Capacity in Older Adults: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
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
To date, pure-tone audiometry remains the gold standard for clinical auditory testing. However, pure-tone audiometry is time-consuming and only provides a discrete estimate of hearing acuity. Here, we aim to address these two main drawbacks by developing a machine learning (ML)-based approach for fully automated bone-conduction (BC) audiometry tests with forehead vibrator placement. Study 1 examines the occlusion effects when the headphones are positioned on both ears during BC forehead testing. Study 2 describes the ML-based approach for BC audiometry, with automated contralateral masking rules, compensation for occlusion effects and forehead-mastoid corrections. Next, the performance of ML-audiometry is examined in comparison to manual and conventional BC audiometry with mastoid placement. Finally, Study 3 examines the test-retest reliability of ML-audiometry. Our results show no significant performance difference between automated ML-audiometry and manual conventional audiometry. High test-retest reliability is achieved with the automated ML-audiometry. Together, our findings demonstrate the performance and reliability of the automated ML-based BC audiometry for both normal-hearing and hearing-impaired adult listeners with mild to severe hearing losses.
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.