Desempenho cognitivo de idosos com perda auditiva
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A literatura internacional, nos últimos anos, vem demonstrando que existe uma relação entre as perdas auditivas e o desempenho cognitivo de idosos. Com o objetivo de analisar o desempenho cognitivo de idosos com perda auditiva, usuários ou não de Aparelho de Amplificação Sonora Individual (AASI) a presente pesquisa obteve oitenta participantes, idosos diagnosticados com perda auditiva e problemas socioeconômicos. Esse é um estudo quantitativo, transversal e observacional, com aplicação dos instrumentos: 1) questionário de caracterização sociodemográfica; 2) Montreal Cognitive Assessment. A análise dos dados utilizou-se de estatística descritiva e, para comparação de médias, o t de Student; para correlação das variáveis, o teste de Coeficiente de Correlação de Pearson e, para comparação das proporções das variáveis, o teste Qui-quadrado de Pearson. Os resultados evidenciaram que idosos com perda auditiva, usuários de AASI e com maior nível de instrução tiveram melhor desempenho no teste cognitivo. Os achados da pesquisa podem auxiliar profissionais da saúde no acompanhamento de idosos com perda auditiva.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".