The prevalence and phenomenology of auditory hallucinations among elderly subjects attending an audiology clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of auditory hallucinations are scant. METHOD: To determine the prevalence and phenomenology of auditory hallucinations among elderly subjects with hearing impairment. OBJECTIVE: We surveyed 125 men and women aged 65 years and over referred to the Audiology department of a university-affiliated primary acute-care hospital. RESULTS: The prevalence of auditory hallucinations was 32.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 24.7-41.8). These hallucinations represented a spectrum of phenomenology from elementary personal impressions to complex percepts. The types of auditory hallucinations included humming or buzzing (35.9%), shushing (12.8%), beating or tapping (10.6%), ringing (7.7%), other individual sounds (15.4%), multiple sounds (12.6%), voices (2.5%) or music (2.5%). Subjects with any type of hallucination were younger and had poorer discrimination scores in the left ear and impaired binaural discrimination with lip-reading. Subjects with hallucinations that had more qualities of a true percept heard different types of sounds and had lower reflex thresholds and better air conduction in the right ear. CONCLUSION: Auditory hallucinations are frequent in elderly subjects with hearing impairment and seem to be associated with younger age and asymmetrical hearing impairment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".