MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A longitudinal study of the association between tooth loss and age‐related hearing loss

2001· article· en· W2020879571 on OpenAlexafffund
Herenia P. Lawrence, Raul I. García, Gregory Essick, Robert J. Hawkins, Elizabeth A. Krall, Avron Spiro, P. Vokonas, Lan Kong, Tonya S. King, Gary G. Koch

Bibliographic record

VenueSpecial Care in Dentistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMedicineLongitudinal studyAudiologyTooth lossLogistic regressionHearing lossDentistryAudiometryOddsGerontologyInternal medicineOral health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to investigate cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between hearing acuity and tooth loss in 1156 US veterans taking part in the Veterans Affairs' Normative Aging (NAS) and Dental Longitudinal (DLS) Studies in the Boston, MA, area. The mean age was 48 years (SD = 8.9), 5.3% were edentulous, and 15.4% had < 17 teeth at baseline. Hearing acuity was determined by puretone, air- and bone-conduction audiometry, and speech discrimination tests at triennial examinations over a 20-year follow-up period. Hearing decline was defined as a change from baseline in the average puretone air-conduction thresholds of > or = 20 dB at 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 kHz. The explanatory variables of interest were change since baseline in dentate status (cut points at < 1, < 17, and < 20 teeth), and in the number of teeth lost (linear). Linear and logistic regression models--which controlled for baseline audiological status, age, air-bone gap, and otoscopic examination at current visit--showed that subjects who went from having > or = 17 to < 17 teeth had 1.64 times (95% CI, 1.24-2.17) as high odds of having hearing decline as those with no change in their dentate status. For every tooth lost since baseline, there was a 1.04 times as high odds (95% CI, 1.02-1.06) for hearing decline, when additional baseline and time-varying covariates were taken into account in the model.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpecial Care in DentistrySame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207