MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170644697 · doi:10.1177/0898264314538662

Association of Self-Reported Hearing Difficulty to Objective and Perceived Participation Outside the Home in Older Community-Dwelling Adults

2014· article· en· W2170644697 on OpenAlexaff
Tuija M. Mikkola, Erja Portegijs, Merja Rantakokko, Jean‐Pierre Gagné, Taina Rantanen, Anne Viljanen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersJyväskylän YliopistoTampereen Yliopisto
KeywordsPsychologyOdds ratioSocial engagementHearing aidHearing lossCognitionGerontologyConfidence intervalAssociation (psychology)AudiologyActivities of daily livingMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether hearing difficulty is associated with objective and perceived participation in social and leisure activities outside the home in older adults. METHOD: Self-reported hearing difficulty, frequency of participation, perceived participation and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were obtained from 848 community-dwelling men and women aged 75 to 90. RESULTS: Among persons with MMSE ≤ 24, hearing was not associated with participation. In persons with MMSE > 24, relative to persons who reported no difficulty hearing, participants with major hearing difficulty had a higher odds ratio [OR] for infrequent participation in group activities (OR 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.2, 3.6]) and more restricted perceived participation (OR 2.1, 95% CI [1.2, 3.7]). Participants with and without hearing difficulty did not differ in their frequency of attending non-group activities or meeting (grand)children or acquaintances. DISCUSSION: Hearing difficulty may restrict older adults with normal cognition from participating in social and leisure activities and living their life as they would like to outside the home.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations28
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging and HealthSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207