Literature DB >> 10229516

Predicting audiometric status from distortion product otoacoustic emissions using multivariate analyses.

P A Dorn1, P Piskorski, M P Gorga, S T Neely, D H Keefe.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: 1) To determine whether multivariate statistical approaches improve the classification of normal and impaired ears based on distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) measurements, in comparison with the results obtained with more traditional single-variable applications of clinical decision theory. 2) To determine how well the multivariate predictors, derived from analysis on a training group, generalized to a validation group. 3) To provide a way to apply the multivariate approaches clinically.
DESIGN: Areas under the relative operating characteristic (ROC) curve and cumulative distributions derived from DPOAE, DPOAE/Noise, discriminant function (DF) scores and logit function (LF) scores were used to compare univariate and multivariate predictors of audiometric status. DPOAE and Noise amplitudes for 8 f2 frequencies were input to a discriminant analysis and to a logistic regression. These analyses generated a DF and LF, respectively, composed of a linear combination of selected variables. The DF and LF scores were the input variables to the decision theory analyses. For comparison purposes, DPOAE test performance was also evaluated using only one variable (DPOAE or DPOAE/Noise when f2 = audiometric frequency). Analyses were based on data from over 1200 ears of 806 subjects, ranging in age from 1.3 to 96 yr, with thresholds ranging from -5 to >120 dB HL. For statistical purposes, normal hearing was defined as thresholds of 20 dB HL or better. For the multivariate analyses, the database was randomly divided into two groups of equal size. One group served as the "training" set, which was used to generate the DFs and LFs. The other group served as a "validation" set to determine the robustness of the DF and LF solutions.
RESULTS: For all test frequencies, multivariate analyses yielded greater areas under the ROC curve than univariate analyses, and greater specificities at fixed sensitivities. Within the multivariate techniques, discriminant analysis and logistic regression yielded similar results and both yielded robust solutions that generalized well to the validation groups. The improvement in test performance with multivariate analyses was greatest for conditions in which the single predictor variable resulted in the poorest performance.
CONCLUSIONS: A more accurate determination of auditory status at a specific frequency can be obtained by combining multiple predictor variables. Although the DF and LF multivariate approaches resulted in the greatest separation between normal and impaired distributions, overlap still exists, which suggests that there would be value in continued efforts to improve DPOAE test performance.

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10229516     DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199904000-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  22 in total

1.  Cochlear Reflectance and Otoacoustic Emission Predictions of Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Stephen T Neely; Sara E Fultz; Judy G Kopun; Natalie M Lenzen; Daniel M Rasetshwane
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  A validation and potential clinical application of multivariate analyses of distortion-product otoacoustic emission data.

Authors:  Michael P Gorga; Darcia M Dierking; Tiffany A Johnson; Kathryn L Beauchaine; Cassie A Garner; Stephen T Neely
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Distortion product otoacoustic emissions: cochlear-source contributions and clinical test performance.

Authors:  Tiffany A Johnson; Stephen T Neely; Judy G Kopun; Darcia M Dierking; Hongyang Tan; Connie Converse; Elizabeth Kennedy; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Relation of distortion-product otoacoustic emission input-output functions to loudness.

Authors:  Daniel M Rasetshwane; Stephen T Neely; Judy G Kopun; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Comparing behavioral and physiological measures of combination tones: sex and race differences.

Authors:  Dennis McFadden; Edward G Pasanen; Erin M Leshikar; Michelle D Hsieh; Mindy M Maloney
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Chirp-Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions and Middle Ear Absorbance for Monitoring Ototoxicity in Cystic Fibrosis Patients.

Authors:  Angela C Garinis; Douglas H Keefe; Lisa L Hunter; Denis F Fitzpatrick; Daniel B Putterman; Garnett P McMillan; Jeffrey A Gold; M Patrick Feeney
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Distortion-product otoacoustic emission test performance for ototoxicity monitoring.

Authors:  Kelly M Reavis; Garnett McMillan; Donald Austin; Frederick Gallun; Stephen A Fausti; Jane S Gordon; Wendy J Helt; Dawn Konrad-Martin
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Multivariate DPOAE metrics for identifying changes in hearing: perspectives from ototoxicity monitoring.

Authors:  Dawn Konrad-Martin; Kelly M Reavis; Garnett P McMillan; Marilyn F Dille
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.117

9.  Interindividual variation of sensitivity to frequency modulation: its relation with click-evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions.

Authors:  Sho Otsuka; Shigeto Furukawa; Shimpei Yamagishi; Koich Hirota; Makio Kashino
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-02-07

10.  Characteristics of the 2f(1)-f(2) distortion product otoacoustic emission in a normal hearing population.

Authors:  Gayla L Poling; Jonathan H Siegel; Jungmee Lee; Jungwha Lee; Sumitrajit Dhar
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.