Subjective and Objective Hearing Loss Among US Adult Cancer Survivors
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Cancer survivors are at a higher risk of developing hearing loss (HL) due to older age, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. However, the prevalence of HL among US cancer survivors remains unknown. Additionally, there is a lack of uniform HL screening guidelines for this enlarging population. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of subjective HL and objective HL by audiometry test among cancer survivors and compare them with the general population as well as to assess the performance of subjective HL questions in detecting true (ie, audiometry-confirmed) HL. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a cross-sectional design, adults between ages 20 and 80 years who had audiometry testing and responded to a hearing questionnaire from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2011-2012, 2015-2016, and 2017 to March 2020 prepandemic survey cycles) were selected. Data analysis was conducted from August 13, 2022, to July 26, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The weighted prevalence of subjective HL (troublesome hearing and tinnitus) and objective HL (speech-frequency HL and high-frequency HL) by audiometry were calculated. Analyses with χ2 testing and multiadjusted logistic regression models were used to compare HL between cancer survivors and the general population. To evaluate the performance of subjective HL questions as a tool to screen for objective HL by audiometry, areas under the curve were estimated using age- and gender-adjusted logistic regression. Results: Among the total 9337 participants (weighted n = 90 098 441; 51.2% women), 10.3% were cancer survivors. Compared with the general population, cancer survivors had a higher prevalence of troublesome hearing (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.11-1.84), tinnitus (AOR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.94-1.74), speech-frequency HL (AOR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.11-1.85), and high-frequency HL (AOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.29-2.34). When using the subjective HL tool and questioning regarding whether the participants were having troublesome hearing and/or tinnitus in screening for HL, the age- and gender-adjusted area under the curve was 0.88 in detecting speech-frequency HL and 0.90 in detecting high-frequency HL. Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that cancer survivors have a significantly higher prevalence of HL than the general population. Two subjective HL questions could potentially accurately identify those who have true HL and provide a simple and efficient screening tool for health care professionals. Cancer survivors and their families should be educated and encouraged to discuss hearing concerns, and health care professionals should facilitate raising awareness and provide early screening and timely referral when HL is identified.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».