Hearing Loss in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of hearing loss (HL) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and to describe frequency-specific hearing threshold changes in this patient population compared to patients without AS. METHODS: A systematic review querying 4 databases (PubMed, OVID Medline, Scopus, Cochrane) was performed to identify studies evaluating HL in patients with AS. Metaanalysis was performed to identify overall prevalence rate and OR of HL, as well as to compare mean differences in frequency-specific hearing thresholds between patients with and without AS. RESULTS: Our metaanalysis included 14 studies and 1083 patients (598 with AS vs 485 without AS). The pooled prevalence of HL in patients with AS was 42.4% (95% CI 29.2-56.2). Patients with AS had a significantly higher OR of HL than patients without AS (OR 4.65, 95% CI 2.73-7.91). Mean differences in pure-tone hearing thresholds ranged from 0-5 decibels (dB) for frequencies of 0.25-4 kHz, and from 5-15 dB for frequencies of 6-16 kHz. CONCLUSION: Patients with AS have higher odds of having HL than patients without AS. The AS population also presents with significantly impaired hearing thresholds across all conventional and extended pure-tone frequencies. This may manifest as slight to moderate HL. Results of this systematic review might justify increased attention to audiologic manifestations of patients with AS.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".