Systematic review of sound stimulation to elicit tinnitus residual inhibition

Background: Residual Inhibition is considered as tinnitus alteration immediately after exposure to sound. Its clinical significance and correlation with the pathophysiology and treatment prognosis of tinnitus remain enigmatic. The objective of this review is to critically appraise scientific evidence regarding the residual inhibition prevalence and how it is correlated with different sound stimuli. Methods: A systematic review of tinnitus Residual Inhibition (RI) studies was performed, focusing on prevalence, methods used, stimuli presented and responses obtained. A literature search (PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, MEDLINE) was conducted. Seventeen studies involving 1066 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Sound stimulation was performed using pure tones, customized sounds, narrow- and broadband noises, and modulated sounds. Results: Sound stimuli exposure produced complete RI of tinnitus in 34.5% of patients (range 5.6–72%), with higher RI rates after stimulation with pure tones and narrowband noise centered to the tinnitus perceived pitch. RI duration tends to increase when stimuli duration increases. Conclusions: RI is frequent and can be induced by narrow-band noise (NBN), broadband noise (BBN), pure tones, customized sounds and modulated sounds. Adequate evidence to support the use of RI as a tool for tinnitus phenotyping or as a management option is pending. Further clinical research exploring the profile of patients with RI and its potential use as prognostic factor should be conducted. © 2021 Elsevier B.V

Genetics of tinnitus: An emerging area for molecular diagnosis and drug development

Subjective tinnitus is the perception of sound in the absence of external or bodily-generated sounds. Chronic tinnitus is a highly prevalent condition affecting over 70 million people in Europe. A wide variety of comorbidities, including hearing loss, psychiatric disorders, neurodegenerative disorders, and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, have been suggested to contribute to the onset or progression of tinnitus; however, the precise molecular mechanisms of tinnitus are not well understood and the contribution of genetic and epigenetic factors remains unknown. Human genetic studies could enable the identification of novel molecular therapeutic targets, possibly leading to the development of novel pharmaceutical therapeutics. In this article, we briefly discuss the available evidence for a role of genetics in tinnitus and consider potential hurdles in designing genetic studies for tinnitus. Since multiple diseases have tinnitus as a symptom and the supporting genetic evidence is sparse, we propose various strategies to investigate the genetic underpinnings of tinnitus, first by showing evidence of heritability using concordance studies in twins, and second by improving patient selection according to phenotype and/or etiology in order to control potential biases and optimize genetic data output. The increased knowledge resulting from this endeavor could ultimately improve the drug development process and lead to the preventive or curative treatment of tinnitus. © 2016 Lopez-Escamez, Bibas, Cima, Van de Heyning, Knipper, Mazurek, Szczepek and Cederroth

Tinnitus and tinnitus disorder: Theoretical and operational definitions (an international multidisciplinary proposal)

As for hypertension, chronic pain, epilepsy and other disorders with particular symptoms, a commonly accepted and unambiguous definition provides a common ground for researchers and clinicians to study and treat the problem. The WHO's ICD11 definition only mentions tinnitus as a nonspecific symptom of a hearing disorder, but not as a clinical entity in its own right, and the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-V doesn't mention tinnitus at all. Here we propose that the tinnitus without and with associated suffering should be differentiated by distinct terms: “Tinnitus” for the former and “Tinnitus Disorder” for the latter. The proposed definition then becomes “Tinnitus is the conscious awareness of a tonal or composite noise for which there is no identifiable corresponding external acoustic source, which becomes Tinnitus Disorder “when associated with emotional distress, cognitive dysfunction, and/or autonomic arousal, leading to behavioural changes and functional disability.”. In other words “Tinnitus” describes the auditory or sensory component, whereas “Tinnitus Disorder” reflects the auditory component and the associated suffering. Whereas acute tinnitus may be a symptom secondary to a trauma or disease, chronic tinnitus may be considered a primary disorder in its own right. If adopted, this will advance the recognition of tinnitus disorder as a primary health condition in its own right. The capacity to measure the incidence, prevalence, and impact will help in identification of human, financial, and educational needs required to address acute tinnitus as a symptom but chronic tinnitus as a disorder. © 2021 Elsevier B.V

Towards a unification of treatments and interventions for tinnitus patients: The EU research and innovation action UNITI

Tinnitus is the perception of a phantom sound and the patient's reaction to it. Although much progress has been made, tinnitus remains a scientific and clinical enigma of high prevalence and high economic burden, with an estimated prevalence of 10%–20% among the adult population. The EU is funding a new collaborative project entitled “Unification of Treatments and Interventions for Tinnitus Patients” (UNITI, grant no. 848261) under its Horizon 2020 framework. The main goal of the UNITI project is to set the ground for a predictive computational model based on existing and longitudinal data attempting to address the question of which treatment or combination of treatments is optimal for a specific patient group based on certain parameters. Clinical, epidemiological, genetic and audiological data, including signals reflecting ear-brain communication, as well as patients' medical history, will be analyzed making use of existing databases. Predictive factors for different patient groups will be extracted and their prognostic relevance validated through a Randomized Clinical Trial (RCT) in which different patient groups will undergo a combination of tinnitus therapies targeting both auditory and central nervous systems. From a scientific point of view, the UNITI project can be summarized into the following research goals: (1) Analysis of existing data: Results of existing clinical studies will be analyzed to identify subgroups of patients with specific treatment responses and to identify systematic differences between the patient groups at the participating clinical centers. (2) Genetic and blood biomarker analysis: High throughput Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) will be performed in well-characterized chronic tinnitus cases, together with Proximity Extension Assays (PEA) for the identification of blood biomarkers for tinnitus. (3) RCT: A total of 500 patients will be recruited at five clinical centers across Europe comparing single treatments against combinational treatments. The four main treatments are Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), hearing aids, sound stimulation, and structured counseling. The consortium will also make use of e/m-health applications for the treatment and assessment of tinnitus. (4) Decision Support System: An innovative Decision Support System will be implemented, integrating all available parameters (epidemiological, clinical, audiometry, genetics, socioeconomic and medical history) to suggest specific examinations and the optimal intervention strategy based on the collected data. (5) Financial estimation analysis: A cost-effectiveness analysis for the respective interventions will be calculated to investigate the economic effects of the interventions based on quality-adjusted life years. In this paper, we will present the UNITI project, the scientific questions that it aims to address, the research consortium, and the organizational structure. © 2021 Elsevier B.V

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical science. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical science. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press