戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1                                           An audiometric 4-frequency (0.5, 1, 2, 4 kHz) pure-tone ave
2                                              Audiometric 4-frequency pure tone average (PTA) was meas
3  AG-induced hearing loss was identified from audiometric and clinical evaluation by a worsened hearin
4  population-based cross-sectional study used audiometric and health care utilization data for respond
5 attributable fractions of dementia from both audiometric and self-reported hearing loss were calculat
6                  Secondary outcomes included audiometric and tympanometric resolution as well as comp
7           Hearing loss measured objectively (audiometric) and subjectively (self-reported).
8 tion, although the uncertainties inherent in audiometric assessment and measurement of hearing-aid be
9                                   A thorough audiometric assessment was conducted in 55 healthy women
10  these, 145 children in each group completed audiometric control at 2 years.
11                       Adults fulfilling NICE audiometric criteria for implant assessment were identif
12 of the telemedicine model for fulfilling the audiometric criteria of SSNHL (loss of >=30 dB in >=3 co
13 t has clearly defined and frequency-specific audiometric criteria.
14 of them had SSNHL that did not meet the full audiometric criteria.
15 population included 62 072 participants with audiometric data (mean [SD] age, 57.4 [7] years; 52% wom
16 ample included participants who had complete audiometric data and a dementia classification, and surv
17                                              Audiometric data and blood samples were collected from t
18 ive sample of adults (age, 45-69 years) with audiometric data and cognitive evaluation from 21 preven
19 ts in the CONSTANCES study, 186 460 had full audiometric data and were included in this study (mean [
20 dividuals who received ICB and had available audiometric data before and after treatment in order to
21                                              Audiometric data demonstrate that teprotumumab influence
22                            Participants with audiometric data from at least 2 examinations and noise
23 ring loss included the 511 participants with audiometric data from both examinations.
24 nces remain poorly understood as comparative audiometric data from great apes are scarce and conflict
25 t 4, carotid plaque presence at visit 4, and audiometric data from visit 6.
26                                              Audiometric data on children aged 6-19 years were obtain
27                 Participants with incomplete audiometric data or missing data for educational level,
28                                    Pure-tone audiometric data was collected on 1033 older females (ag
29                                 Clinical and audiometric data were analyzed for treatment naive ears.
30 s attended annual examinations, during which audiometric data were collected.
31        Of the 14 patients with posttreatment audiometric data, 8 (57.1%) experienced improvement afte
32 The present study included participants with audiometric data.
33 aced the output signal within the listener's audiometric dynamic range.
34 hile placing that envelope in the listener's audiometric dynamic range.
35                            Self-reported and audiometric effect sizes were similar, with lower hetero
36            Follow-up examinations, including audiometric evaluation, were performed at 4, 8, 12, 24,
37 asures typically included in a comprehensive audiometric evaluation.
38                                              Audiometric evaluations demonstrated that the mice displ
39 rveys in question wording and limited use of audiometric examinations.
40 erans with adult-onset hearing loss and mean audiometric findings consistent with a mild to severe, s
41                                              Audiometric findings, complementation group, acute burni
42 a were collected between 2017 and 2025, with audiometric follow-up 3 months postoperatively.
43 dB or greater over at least three contiguous audiometric frequencies occurring within a 72-hr period.
44 rized overall hearing status consistent with audiometric guidelines.
45 persistent smoking was associated with worse audiometric hearing and speech-in-noise perception.
46                                              Audiometric hearing and speech-in-noise testing was offe
47                                              Audiometric hearing deficits are a common symptom of age
48 ow that while aged rhesus monkeys experience audiometric hearing deficits similar to that seen in hum
49 terventions targeting clinically significant audiometric hearing loss might have broad benefits for d
50                                              Audiometric hearing loss severity and participant-report
51 n attributable fraction of dementia from any audiometric hearing loss was 32.0% (95% CI, 11.0%-46.5%)
52       Population attributable fractions from audiometric hearing loss were larger among those who wer
53  individuals), 1947 participants (66.1%) had audiometric hearing loss, and 1097 (37.2%) had self-repo
54 n is a primary complaint of individuals with audiometric hearing loss.
55 and older listeners (10 per group) with good audiometric hearing participated.
56  dietary patterns and longitudinal change in audiometric hearing thresholds among 3,135 women (mean a
57  in older listeners-even for those with good audiometric hearing.
58                We tested the hypothesis that audiometric HI measured in 2013 is associated with poore
59         Of these 10 patients, 7 demonstrated audiometric improvement, as assessed by pure tone averag
60 poral processing, even in the absence of any audiometric loss.
61 evidence have suggested that steeply sloping audiometric losses are caused by hair cell degeneration,
62 caused by hair cell degeneration, while flat audiometric losses are caused by strial atrophy, but thi
63     Since word-score predictions assume that audiometric losses can be compensated by increasing stim
64 ecific amplification to compensate for their audiometric losses, and intelligibility was assessed for
65 quantify self-reporting biases compared with audiometric measurements.
66                                              Audiometric measures of hearing loss and self-reported h
67                           Criterion-standard audiometric measures of hearing loss and self-reported h
68                                     Standard audiometric measures of hearing loss over a wide frequen
69  Multimodal neuroimaging studies integrating audiometric, neuropsychological, and clinical assessment
70 adolescents had a higher adjusted OR to have audiometric notches (OR = 1.93; 95% CI: 1.33-2.81) and H
71                    The prevalence of overall audiometric notches in the adolescent population was 16.
72 vestigate whether obesity is associated with audiometric notches indicative of noise-induced hearing
73 o underwent VT surgery in Norway in terms of audiometric outcomes 2 years after VT insertion in other
74                                              Audiometric outcomes of the observation group were found
75 r assessment to adult unaided listeners with audiometric profiles ranging from normal hearing to mode
76  absolute hearing gain recorded by pure-tone audiometric (PTA) thresholds averaged across 4 low (0.5,
77                       Hearing defined by the audiometric pure-tone average of 1, 2, and 4 kHz.
78 urements were compared with anonymized local audiometric reference data by using the t test.
79 dren in elementary, middle, and high school, audiometric screening should include low-frequency and h
80 PSIP1 mutation is associated with a peculiar audiometric slope toward the high frequencies.
81                        Meta-regression among audiometric studies showed a dose-response association (
82 shold elevation proceeds more rapidly in low audiometric test frequencies than in high frequencies.
83 , average thresholds across patients at each audiometric test frequency increase by 6.0 dB hearing le
84 st of verbal auditory working memory, and an audiometric test.
85                                              Audiometric testing is critical for counseling patients
86                                              Audiometric testing was conducted from 2003 to 2004 (age
87            The audiographers responsible for audiometric testing were blinded to patient allocation.
88 ure tone averages (PTA) were used to analyze audiometric testing.
89 logic referral to confirm the diagnosis with audiometric testing.
90  hearing loss in older adults using standard audiometric testing.
91 on Survey (NHANES) 2012-2018 data comprising audiometric tests and cardiovascular risk factors was ut
92 years, mean age 45years) with SNHL proven by audiometric tests.
93 etric thresholds, and the difference between audiometric threshold and cochlear gain loss were also i
94     The majority of adults meeting pure tone audiometric threshold criteria for cochlear implantation
95 and profound deafness (defined by an average audiometric threshold of >90 decibel hearing level [dB H
96                     Hearing loss, defined as audiometric threshold values of at least 16-dB hearing l
97  to be detectable using standard measures of audiometric threshold.
98  These perceptual differences, despite equal audiometric-threshold elevation, are often assumed to re
99             Outcome measures were individual audiometric thresholds (0.25 kHz to 8.0 kHz) and pure-to
100  social settings, even when they have normal audiometric thresholds [1-3].
101 ral dead regions (with matched low-frequency audiometric thresholds across ears) were also tested.
102 already in middle-aged animals having normal audiometric thresholds and is even worse in old animals
103 evere neuronal loss correlates with elevated audiometric thresholds and poor word recognition.
104 evalent human condition that does not affect audiometric thresholds and therefore remains largely und
105 generation and its relationship to pure tone audiometric thresholds and word recognition scores in co
106 ibit degraded temporal resolution, even when audiometric thresholds are normal.
107 histopathological measures as predictors and audiometric thresholds as the outcome showed that strial
108 e correlations between TFS-AF thresholds and audiometric thresholds at low frequencies (125-1000 Hz)
109 a more substantial deterioration in clinical audiometric thresholds at their subsequent visit than th
110 f 6,482 submitted patients meeting pure tone audiometric thresholds for cochlear implantation, 311 al
111      The two groups were matched in terms of audiometric thresholds for frequencies below fe and in t
112 ommon problem in humans that does not affect audiometric thresholds on a clinical hearing test.
113                Working memory span, age, and audiometric thresholds showed no significant association
114                                         Age, audiometric thresholds, and the difference between audio
115 ful speech-in-noise perception is related to audiometric thresholds, fundamental grouping of static a
116  despite having "normal" hearing in terms of audiometric thresholds.
117  early outer hair cell damage despite stable audiometric thresholds.
118 ion product otoacoustic emissions and normal audiometric thresholds.
119 r more with normal or elevated low-frequency audiometric thresholds.
120 uring central (grouping) processes alongside audiometric thresholds.

 
Page Top