SynthesisNoise & health
Applying Machine Learning Models to Predict Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Noise & health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesTo map and critically appraise prediction models for occupational noise-induced hearing loss (ONIHL) using machine learning (ML) approaches and to evaluate reporting quality and risk of bias.
methodsSeven databases were systematically searched. Reporting quality was assessed using the TRIPOD-AI checklist, and risk of bias and applicability were evaluated using the PROBAST tool. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate ML model performance for predicting ONIHL using the area under the curve (AUC), with subgroup analysis by different algorithms and ONIHL definitions.
resultsSixteen studies were included. Support vector machine (SVM) was the most frequently used algorithm, followed by random forest and artificial neural network (ANN). Age, noise level, and exposure duration were the most common input variables, with little consideration of noise type or its complex temporal structure, and most studies used categorical hearing loss status as the outcome. PROBAST assessment revealed 56% (9/16) of studies at high risk of bias, 38% (6/16) at low risk, and 6% (1/16) at unclear risk; applicability concerns were common (31% at high risk). Meta-analysis of 29 ML models yielded a pooled AUC of 0.788 (95% CI: 0.761-0.813; I2 = 93.4%), while six logistic regression models yielded 0.811 (95% CI: 0.743-0.865; I2 = 87.4%). Subgroup analysis showed that XGBoost and ANN algorithms achieved the highest AUC (both 0.846), and the ONIHL definition was a major source of heterogeneity.
conclusionsML models demonstrate potential for predicting ONIHL. However, due to high risk of bias, substantial heterogeneity, and lack of external validation, current evidence should be interpreted with caution. More well-designed studies are needed.
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.