Reported Hearing Loss in Alzheimer’s Disease Is Associated With Loss of Brainstem and Cerebellar Volume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple epidemiological studies have revealed an association between presbycusis and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). Unfortunately, the neurobiological underpinnings of this relationship are not clear. It is possible that the two disorders share a common, as yet unidentified, risk factor, or that hearing loss may independently accelerate AD pathology. Here, we examined the relationship between reported hearing loss and brain volumes in normal, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD subjects using a publicly available database. We found that among subjects with AD, individuals that reported hearing loss had smaller brainstem and cerebellar volumes in both hemispheres than individuals without hearing loss. In addition, we found that these brain volumes diminish in size more rapidly among normal subjects with reported hearing loss and that there was a significant interaction between cognitive diagnosis and the relationship between reported hearing loss and these brain volumes. These data suggest that hearing loss is linked to brainstem and cerebellar pathology, but only in the context of the pathological state of AD. We hypothesize that the presence of AD-related pathology in both the brainstem and cerebellum creates vulnerabilities in these brain regions to auditory deafferentation-related atrophy. These data have implications for our understanding of the potential neural substrates for interactions between hearing loss and AD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".