ArticleWorld journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery2025
Performance and reliability evaluation of an improved machine learning-based pure-tone audiometry with automated masking.
Article in World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perspectives of audiologists in China on artificial intelligence in clinical practice and professional identity: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Performance and reliability evaluation of an improved machine learning-based pure-tone audiometry with automated masking.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Performance and Reliability Evaluation of an Automated Bone-Conduction Audiometry Using Machine Learning.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Automated air-conduction pure-tone audiograms through Bayesian estimation and machine learning (ML) classification have recently been proposed in the literature. Although such ML-based audiometry approaches represent a significant addition to the field, they remain unsuited for daily clinical settings, in particular for listeners with asymmetric or conductive hearing loss, severe hearing loss, or cochlear dead zones. The goal here is to expand on previously proposed ML approaches and assess the performance of this improved ML audiometry for a large sample of listeners with a wide range of hearing status. Methods: First, we describe the changes made to the ML method through the addition of: (1) safety limits to test listeners with a wide range of hearing status, (2) transient responses to cater for cochlear dead zones or nonmeasurable thresholds, and importantly, (3) automated contralateral masking to test listeners with asymmetric or conductive hearing loss. Next, we compared the performance of this improved ML audiometry with conventional and manual audiometry in a large cohort ( Results: Our results showed that for all audiometric frequencies tested, no significant difference was found between hearing thresholds obtained using manual audiometry on a clinical audiometer as compared to both the manual and automated improved ML methods. Furthermore, the test-retest difference was not significant with the automated improved ML method for each audiometric frequency tested. Finally, when examining cross-clinic reliability measures, significant differences were found for most audiometric frequencies tested. Conclusions: Together, our results validate the use of this improved ML-based method in adult clinical tests for air-conduction audiometry.
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.