The Association between Hearing Loss and Social Isolation in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if age-related hearing loss is associated with social isolation and whether factors such as age, gender, income, race, or hearing aid use moderated the association. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Randomly sampled United States communities. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional data on adults 60 to 84 years old from the 1999 to 2006 cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were analyzed. The dependent variable was social isolation, which was defined using the social isolation score (SIS), a 4-point composite index consisting of items pertaining to strength of social network and support. SIS scores ≥2 were considered indicative of social isolation. The independent (predictor) variable was the pure tone average of speech frequency (0.5-4 kHz) hearing thresholds in the better-hearing ear. Covariates included potential medical, demographic, and otologic confounders. We used multivariate logistic regression to evaluate the association between hearing loss and the odds of having social isolation. An exploratory analysis was performed to assess the strength of associations between hearing loss and individual items of the SIS scale. RESULTS: Greater hearing loss was associated with increased odds of social isolation in women aged 60 to 69 years (odds ratio [OR], 3.49 per 25-dB of hearing loss; 95% confidence interval, 1.91, 6.39; P < .001). Effect modification by gender was significant in this age group (P = .003). Hearing loss was not significantly associated with social isolation in other age and gender groups. CONCLUSIONS: Greater hearing loss is associated with increased odds of being social isolated in a nationally representative sample of women aged 60 to 69 years.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".