ArticlePeerJ2025
Development and validation of the AUDEXCEL algorithm as a diagnostic tool for occupational noise-related hearing disorder.
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- Association between hearing protection device use and noise-induced hearing loss among manufacturing workers in China: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Occupational noise-related hearing disorder (ONRHD) is an occupational disease that poses a significant challenge for workers both globally and locally. To address this, the study aimed to develop and validate AUDEXCEL, an Excel-based algorithm designed to diagnose ONRHD among workers in Malaysia. Materials & Methods: This cross-sectional study involved audiograms from 320 workers. These audiograms were first analyzed by experienced occupational health doctors (OHDs) to establish a gold standard diagnosis. The same audiograms were then assessed using the AUDEXCEL algorithm, which was validated through 5-fold cross-validation. Validity (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value) and reliability (Cohen's kappa coefficient) were evaluated for normal hearing, hearing loss, hearing impairment, permanent standard threshold shift (PSTS), temporary standard threshold shift (TSTS), and noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). Results: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for normal hearing, hearing loss, PSTS, and TSTS were all 100.0%, with perfect agreement (κ = 1.000). For hearing impairment, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 100.0%, 99.5%, 99.5%, and 100.0%, respectively, with almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.994). For NIHL, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 90.3%, 98.0%, 95.0%, and 96.1%, respectively, also showing almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.922). Conclusions: AUDEXCEL demonstrated high validity and reliability in replicating expert diagnoses and may serve as a supportive diagnostic aid for ONRHD. However, its use should be complemented by clinical and occupational exposure assessments due to the inherent complexity of diagnosing ONRHD.
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.