ArticleJournal of otology2025
Developing a diagnostic support system for audiogram interpretation using deep learning-based object detection.
Article in Journal of otology, 2025. 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.
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop and evaluate an automated system for digitizing audiograms, classifying hearing loss levels, and comparing their performance with traditional methods and otolaryngologists' interpretations. Designed and Methods: We conducted a retrospective diagnostic study using 1,959 audiogram images from patients aged 7 years and older at the Faculty of Medicine, Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University. We employed an object detection approach to digitize audiograms and developed multiple machine learning models to classify six hearing loss levels. The dataset was split into 70% training (1,407 images) and 30% testing (352 images) sets. We compared our model's performance with classifications based on manually extracted audiogram values and otolaryngologists' interpretations. Result: Our object detection-based model achieved an F1-score of 94.72% in classifying hearing loss levels, comparable to the 96.43% F1-score obtained using manually extracted values. The Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LGBM) model is used as the classifier for the manually extracted data, which achieved top performance with 94.72% accuracy, 94.72% f1-score, 94.72 recall, and 94.72 precision. In object detection based model, The Random Forest Classifier (RFC) model showed the highest 96.43% accuracy in predicting hearing loss level, with a F1-score of 96.43%, recall of 96.43%, and precision of 96.45%. Conclusion: Our proposed automated approach for audiogram digitization and hearing loss classification performs comparably to traditional methods and otolaryngologists' interpretations. This system can potentially assist otolaryngologists in providing more timely and effective treatment by quickly and accurately classifying 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.