ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Development and comparison of machine learning models for predicting moderate-to-severe tinnitus in patients with hearing loss.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 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.
- Whole-brain functional activity and connectivity for the classification of subjective tinnitus: a machine learning study.Frontiers in neurology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Analyze the psychological and clinical factors of clinically significant tinnitus (THI score ≥38) in patients with hearing loss, construct predictive models based on four machine learning (ML) algorithms, and compare the predictive performance of different models. Methods: Patients with hearing loss who visited the Department of Otolaryngology at Qinghai University between August 2024 and May 2025 were enrolled in this study. Clinical data were retrieved from the hospital's electronic medical record system. The study outcome was the occurrence of clinically significant tinnitus. Predictive variables were screened using univariate analysis, the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, and the Boruta algorithm. Four ML algorithms-logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and support vector machine (SVM)-were applied to construct and validate predictive models. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of each model in the validation set was compared using the DeLong test. Additionally, model performance metrics in the validation set were compared to identify the optimal model. Finally, the Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) algorithm was employed to interpret the best-performing model. Results: Nine key variables-age, hypertension, sleep disorder, anxiety, hearing loss severity, depression, noise exposure history, hearing side, and ototoxic drug use-were retained after LASSO and Boruta feature selection. Among the four ML models, the RF algorithm achieved the best predictive performance, with an AUC of 0.973 in the training set and 0.977 in the validation set, followed by XGBoost (AUC = 0.962 and 0.961, respectively). DeLong tests confirmed that RF significantly outperformed LR and SVM models ( Conclusion: The RF model showed the best performance in predicting clinically significant tinnitus, with hearing loss severity, age, and sleep disorder identified as major predictors. Integrating auditory and psychological factors can improve early risk identification in patients with 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.