Screening an elderly hearing impaired population for mild cognitive impairment using Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine if there is an association between hearing loss and poorer cognitive scores on Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and to determine if poor hearing acuity affects scoring on the cognitive screening tests of MMSE and MoCA. METHODS: One hundred fourteen elderly patients (Singapore residents) aged between 55 and 86 years were sampled. Participants completed a brief history questionnaire, pure tone audiometry, and 2 cognitive screening tests-the MMSE and MoCA. Average hearing thresholds of the better ear in the frequencies of 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz were used for data analysis. RESULTS: Hearing loss was significantly associated with poorer cognitive scores in Poisson regression models adjusted for age. Mini-Mental State Examination scores were shown to decrease by 2.8% (P = .029), and MoCA scores by 3.5% (P = .013) for every 10 dB of hearing loss. Analysis of hearing-sensitive components of "Registration" and "Recall" in MMSE and MoCA using chi-square tests showed significantly poorer performance in the hearing loss group as compared to the normal hearing group. Phonetic analysis of target words with high error rates shows that the poor performance was likely contributed by decreased hearing acuity, on top of a possible true deficit in cognition in the hearing impaired. CONCLUSIONS: Hearing loss is associated with poorer cognitive scores on MMSE and MoCA, and cognitive scoring is likely confounded by poor hearing ability. This highlights an important, often overlooked aspect of sensory impairment during cognitive screening. Provisions should be made when testing for cognition in the hearing-impaired population to avoid over-referral and subsequent misdiagnoses of cognitive 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".