ReviewNoise & health
Advancing Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Risk Assessment in the Era of Large-Scale Data.
Review 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Occupational noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) remains a leading occupational disorder worldwide and continues to impose substantial burdens on workers, employers, compensation systems, and health systems. ISO 1999 remains the principal framework for estimating population-level hearing loss associated with occupational noise exposure, while ISO 9612 provides the corresponding methodology for exposure determination. However, the context in which these models are applied has changed substantially. Hearing conservation programs, surveillance systems, and retrospective industrial cohorts now generate large audiometric and exposure datasets that allow direct comparisons between predicted and observed outcomes in real worker populations. This narrative review examines how such data can strengthen occupational NIHL risk assessment through validation, characterization of prediction gaps, population-specific calibration, harmonized reporting of early high-frequency indicators, and prevention-oriented interpretation. It also considers the continued value of energy-based approaches and the limits of L Aeq -only modeling in complex-noise environments characterized by impulsiveness, intermittency, or non-Gaussian temporal structure. The argument is not that established standards should be discarded, but that their implementation should become more transparent, data-informed, and adaptive. A staged pathway is proposed in which established frameworks are retained while their use is strengthened through structured validation procedures, calibration strategies, explicit applicability statements, and data infrastructures that support future model refinement. The proposed framework also treats real-world data heterogeneity, healthy-worker selection, co-exposures, baseline-rule inconsistency, and the field operability of complex-noise metrics as explicit determinants of model transportability. For prediction applications, it emphasizes prespecified endpoints, transparent calibration, external validation, and avoidance of overinterpretation by machine learning or other high-dimensional methods.
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.