MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205759505 · doi:10.1177/0145482x211072541

Prevalence of Individuals With Deafblindness and Age-Related Dual-Sensory Loss

2022· article· en· W4205759505 on OpenAlexaff
Renu Minhas, Atul Jaiswal, Serena Chan, Jessica Trevisan, Abinethaa Paramasivam, Roxanna Spruyt-Rocks

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visual Impairment & Blindness · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensory lossPopulationPrevalenceMedicineDemographyGerontologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The authors of this paper have compiled a report on the prevalence of deafblindness and dual-sensory loss based on the review of existing estimates. The purpose is to inform readers of the importance of using consistent, well-researched definitions and survey questions in future prevalence studies. Methods Articles were extracted through ProQuest and EBSCOhost, online library databases of Cambrian College and Laurentian University. Keywords search included “deafblindness,” “dual-sensory impairment,” “dual-sensory loss,” “age-related,” “congenital,” “acquired,” and “prevalence.” Additionally, the authors conducted a search with Google for research reports and Google Scholar for other relevant peer-reviewed articles. Results This review provides a current overview of prevalence estimates of deafblindness and age-related dual-sensory loss around the world, examining 19 articles or reports published over the last 20 years (2000–2020) in 18 countries, including the European Union (consisting of 8 countries). In line with the prevalence estimates by the World Federation for the Deafblind global report 2018, the review indicates an estimated 0.2–2% prevalence of dual-sensory impairment and underscores varying ranges of prevalence among populations, studies or countries, age groups, and types of deafblindness. The review highlights that the prevalence of deafblindness or dual-sensory loss was often not comparable across studies, but it is clear that the prevalence of dual-sensory impairment increases with age. The studies varied in methods (e.g., population surveys, cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies). Implication for Practitioners The review provides evidence of varying ranges of prevalence rates. Future prevalence studies may benefit from consistent definitions, standard data-collection tools to do better comparisons across countries, and identify factors that predict higher or lower prevalence rates among populations and age groups.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations38
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visual Impairment & BlindnessSame topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207