Hearing Loss and Physical Activity Among Older Adults in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is associated with adverse health outcomes among older adults. Lower physical activity levels may partly explain these observations, yet the association between hearing loss, hearing aid use, and physical activity among older adults is understudied. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of National Health and Aging Trends Study (2021) participants. The better-hearing ear pure-tone average (BPTA) at speech frequencies (0.5-4 kHz) was modeled continuously (10-dB increments) and categorically (no: ≤25 dB, mild: 26-40 dB, moderate or greater: >40 dB hearing loss). Activity measures were wrist accelerometry-derived (Actigraph) total activity counts, daily active minutes, activity fragmentation (using active-to-sedentary transition probability), and self-reported participation in vigorous activities and walking for exercise in the last month. We used multivariable regression adjusted for sociodemographic and health covariates. RESULTS: Among 504 participants excluding hearing aid users (mean age = 79 years, 57% female, 9% Black), 338 (67%) had hearing loss. Worse hearing (continuously and categorically) was associated with fewer counts and active minutes, more fragmented activity, and greater odds of not reporting recent vigorous activities. Among 472 participants with hearing loss including hearing aid users, nonusers (n = 338) had more fragmented activity and greater odds of not reporting walking for exercise compared to users. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with hearing loss are less physically active. This may mediate the association between hearing loss and other adverse outcomes. Recognition of this potential association is essential for providers to better support older adults in maintaining an active lifestyle. Future research is warranted to understand the impact of hearing interventions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".