Association Between Adult-Onset Hearing Loss and Income: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hearing loss has been shown to be associated with both negative health outcomes and low socioeconomic position, including lower income. Despite this, a thorough review of the existing literature on this relationship has not yet been performed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate available literature on the possible association between income and adult-onset hearing loss. DESIGN: A search was conducted in eight databases for all relevant literature using terms focused on hearing loss and income. Studies reporting the presence or absence of an association between income and hearing loss, full-text English-language access, and a predominantly adult population (≥18 years old) were eligible. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: The initial literature search yielded 2994 references with three additional sources added through citation searching. After duplicate removal, 2355 articles underwent title and abstract screening. This yielded 161 articles eligible for full-text review resulting in 46 articles that were included in qualitative synthesis. Of the included studies, 41 of 46 articles found an association between income and adult-onset hearing loss. Due to heterogeneity among study designs, a meta-analysis was not performed. CONCLUSIONS: The available literature consistently supports an association between income and adult-onset hearing loss but is limited entirely to cross-sectional studies with the directionality remaining unknown. An aging population and the negative health outcomes associated with hearing loss, emphasize the importance of understanding and addressing the role of social determinants of health in the prevention and management of 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 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 | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".