The longitudinal relationship between hearing loss and cognitive decline in tonal language-speaking older adults in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Previous longitudinal studies indicate that hearing loss and cognitive impairment are associated in non-tonal language-speaking older adults. This study aimed to investigate whether there is a longitudinal association between hearing loss and cognitive decline in older adults who speak a tonal language. Methods: Chinese-speaking older adults aged 60 years and above were recruited for baseline and 12 month follow-up measurements. All participants completed a pure tone audiometric hearing test, Hearing Impaired-Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test (HI-MoCA), and a Computerized Neuropsychological Test Battery (CANTAB). The De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale was used to measure loneliness, and the 21-item Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21) was used to measure aspects of mental health. Associations between baseline hearing loss and various cognitive, mental and psychosocial measures were evaluated using logistic regression. Results: A total of 71 (29.6%) of the participants had normal hearing, 70 (29.2%) had mild hearing loss, and 99 (41.2%) had moderate or severe hearing loss at baseline, based on mean hearing thresholds in the better ear. After adjusting for demographic and other factors, baseline moderate/severe audiometric hearing loss was associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment at follow-up (OR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.06, 4.50). When pure-tone average (PTA) was modeled continuously, an average difference of 0.24 in HI-MoCA scores for every 10 dB increase in BE4FA existed, and an average difference of 0.07 in the change of HI-MoCA scores in a 12 month period. Discussion: The results revealed a significant longitudinal relationship between age-related hearing loss and cognitive decline in this cohort of tonal language-speaking older adults. Steps should also be taken to incorporate hearing assessment and cognitive screening in clinical protocols for older adults 60 years and above in both hearing and memory clinics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".