Comparison of tympanometry results for probe tones of 226 Hz and 1000 Hz in newborns

Piłka, Edyta; Kochanek, Krzysztof; Jędrzejczak, Wiesław Wiktor; Saczek, Aneta; Skarżyńśki, Henryk; Niedzielski, Artur

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2021.110804

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A notable example of an incorrect response is that for question 3, which asked for the frequency of the measuring tone in tympanometry for a child aged three months. While the typical frequency for adults is 226 Hz (and that was known by ChatGPT), it is well established that for children up to six months of age the test frequency should be 1000 Hz [21,22]. This has been known for several years and is basic information in contemporary audiology, so it is hard to know why ChatGPT made this mistake.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy and Repeatability of ChatGPT Based on a Set of Multiple-Choice Questions on Objective Tests of Hearing

Kochanek,

Skarzynski,

Jedrzejczak

2024

Cureus

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: ChatGPT has been tested in many disciplines, but only a few have involved hearing diagnosis and none to physiology or audiology more generally. The consistency of the chatbot's responses to the same question posed multiple times has not been well investigated either. This study aimed to assess the accuracy and repeatability of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 on test questions concerning objective measures of hearing. Of particular interest was the short-term repeatability of responses which was here tested on four separate days extended over one week.Methods: We used 30 single-answer, multiple-choice exam questions from a one-year course on objective methods of testing hearing. The questions were posed five times to both ChatGPT 3.5 (the free version) and ChatGPT 4 (the paid version) on each of four days (two days one week and two days the following week). The accuracy of the responses was evaluated in terms of a response key. To evaluate the repeatability of the responses over time, percent agreement and Cohen's Kappa were calculated.Results: The overall accuracy of ChatGPT 3.5 was 48-49%, while that of ChatGPT 4 was 65-69%. ChatGPT 3.5 consistently failed to pass the threshold of 50% correct responses. Within a single day, the percent agreement was 76-79% for ChatGPT 3.5 and 87-88% for ChatGPT 4 (Cohen's Kappa 0.67-0.71 and 0.81-0.84 respectively). The percent agreement between responses from different days was 75-79% for ChatGPT 3.5 and 85-88% for ChatGPT 4 (Cohen's Kappa 0.65-0.69 and 0.80-0.85 respectively). Conclusion: ChatGPT 4 outperforms ChatGPT 3.5 both in accuracy and higher repeatability over time. However, the great variability of the responses casts doubt on possible professional applications of both versions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy and Repeatability of ChatGPT Based on a Set of Multiple-Choice Questions on Objective Tests of Hearing

Kochanek,

Skarzynski,

Jedrzejczak

2024

Cureus

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The velocity was 50 daPa/second, and the pressure was from + 200 to − 400 daPa. In relation to tympanometry with a 1000 Hz probe tone in infants, the single-peaked and double-peaked tympanograms were indicated to have normal middle ear function, and the flat-sloping and other unclassified tympanograms suggested abnormal middle ear function 29 , 30 . With regard to tympanometry with a 226 Hz probe tone, the type A curve (normal curve having a single peak of middle ear pressure between − 150 and + 100 daPa, admittance ranging from 0.2 to 1.6 cm 3 and a ear canal volume of 0.2–1.8 mL) indicated normal middle ear function.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of audiological outcomes of children referred from a universal newborn hearing screening program over 9 years in Beijing, China

Li,

Yang,

Wang

et al. 2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) and audiological diagnosis are crucial for children with congenital hearing loss (HL). The objective of this study was to analyze hearing screening techniques, audiological outcomes and risk factors among children referred from a UNHS program in Beijing. A retrospective analysis was performed in children who were referred to our hospital after failing UNHS during a 9-year period. A series of audiological diagnostic tests were administered to each case, to confirm and determine the type and degree of HL. Risk factors for HL were collected. Of 1839 cases, 53.0% were referred after only transient evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) testing, 46.1% were screened by a combination of TEOAE and automatic auditory brainstem response (AABR) testing, and 1.0% were referred after only AABR testing. HL was confirmed in 55.7% of cases. Ears with screening results that led to referral experienced a more severe degree of HL than those with results that passed. Risk factors for HL were identified in 113 (6.1%) cases. The main risk factors included craniofacial anomalies (2.7%), length of stay in the neonatal intensive care unit longer than 5 days (2.4%) and birth weight less than 1500 g (0.8%). The statistical data showed that age (P < 0.001) and risk factors, including craniofacial anomalies (P < 0.001) and low birth weight (P = 0.048), were associated with the presence of HL. This study suggested that hearing screening plays an important role in the early detection of HL and that children with risk factors should be closely monitored.

show abstract

Neonatal hearing screening - does failure in TEOAE screening matter when the AABR test is passed?

Gellrich,

Gröger,

Echternach

et al. 2023

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Newborns who fail the transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) but pass the automatic auditory brainstem response (AABR) in universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS), frequently have no further diagnostic test or follow-up. The present study aimed to investigate whether hearing loss might be missed by ignoring neonatal TEOAE failure in the presence of normal AABR. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted in newborns presenting between 2017 and 2021 to a tertiary referral centre due to failure in the initial UNHS. The main focus was on infants who failed TEOAE tests, but passed AABR screening. The clinical characteristics and audiometric outcomes were analysed and compared with those of other neonates. Results Among 1,095 referred newborns, 253 (23%) failed TEOAE despite passing AABR screening. Of the 253 affected infants, 154 returned for follow-up. At 1-year follow-up, 46 (28%) achieved normal audiometric results. 32 (21%) infants had permanent hearing loss (HL) confirmed by diagnostic ABR, 58 (38%) infants had HL solely due to middle ear effusion (MEE), and for 18 (12%) infants HL was suspected without further differentiation. The majority of permanent HL was mild (78% mild vs. 13% moderate vs. 9% profound). The rate of spontaneous MEE clearance was rather low (29%) leading to early surgical intervention in 36 children. The profile of the risk factors for hearing impairment was similar to that of newborns with failure in both, TEOAE and AABR; however, there was a stronger association between the presence of risk factors and the incidence of HL (relative risk 1.55 vs. 1.06; odds ratio 3.61 vs. 1.80). Conclusion In newborns, the discordance between a “refer” in TEOAE and a “pass” in AABR screening is associated with a substantial prevalence of hearing impairment at follow-up, especially in the presence of risk factors.

show abstract

Comparison of tympanometry results for probe tones of 226 Hz and 1000 Hz in newborns

Cited by 6 publications

References 36 publications

Accuracy and Repeatability of ChatGPT Based on a Set of Multiple-Choice Questions on Objective Tests of Hearing

Accuracy and Repeatability of ChatGPT Based on a Set of Multiple-Choice Questions on Objective Tests of Hearing

Analysis of audiological outcomes of children referred from a universal newborn hearing screening program over 9 years in Beijing, China

Neonatal hearing screening - does failure in TEOAE screening matter when the AABR test is passed?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About