MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809413273 · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1660779

Dementia and Hearing Loss: Interrelationships and Treatment Considerations

2018· review· en· W2809413273 on OpenAlex
Sara K. Mamo, Tammy Hopper, H. Isabel Hubbard

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Speech and Language · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaHearing lossContext (archaeology)NeurocognitiveAudiologyPsychological interventionPsychologyCognitive declineCognitionDiseaseMedicineGerontologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hearing loss is common among typically aging older adults and those with dementia. In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in the relationship between hearing and cognition among older adults, and in hearing loss as a modifiable risk factor for dementia. However, relatively less attention has been focused on the management of hearing loss among individuals with dementia and the key roles of speech-language pathologists and audiologists in providing such care. In this article, the authors review the literature on hearing loss and dementia, and analyze the research evidence for treatment of hearing loss in the context of major neurocognitive disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease. This article provides an up-to-date review of research evidence for hearing interventions, as well as recommendations for speech-language pathologists and audiologists to work together to ensure access to hearing health care and increased opportunities for meaningful life engagement for people with dementia and hearing loss.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.286 · 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