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 OpenAlexaff
Sara K. Mamo, Tammy Hopper, H. Isabel Hubbard

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Speech and LanguageSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207