Sleep Complaints in Elderly Tinnitus Patients: A Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objectives: Sleep difficulties are among the most frequent complaints associated with tinnitus. Yet most studies reporting on this problem are rather succinct, and all of them lack proper age- and health-matched control subjects. Design: The present study reports on 102 participants (51 with and 51 without tinnitus), assessed with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Beck-II depression inventory, a hyperacusis questionnaire, and a tinnitus-reaction questionnaire (tinnitus group only). Participants were matched for health and relevant socioeconomic factors. Results: Results show that tinnitus patients have greater self-reported sleep difficulties compared with control subjects, specifically sleep efficiency and sleep quality, and that high tinnitus-related distress is associated with greater sleep disturbance. Conclusions: Rather than hearing loss, sleep complaints in this population are mainly explained by hyperacusis, a hallmark of tinnitus, and to a lesser extent by subclinical depressive symptoms. A standardized sleep questionnaire, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), was used to investigate sleep complaints in a group of 51 elderly participants with tinnitus and 51 controls matched in health and socioeconomical factors. Data on hyperacusis, depressive symptomatology, and tinnitus-related distress (tinnitus group) were collected, as well as hearing thresholds. Results showed that self-reported sleep quality and sleep efficiency were worse in the tinnitus than in the control group, but daily disturbances were not. Sleep complaints were mainly explained by hyperacusis, and to a lesser extent by subclinical depressive symptoms, rather than hearing loss. Greater tinnitus distress was associated with worse sleep quality.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".