Subjective and Objective Hearing Loss Among US Adult Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Cancer survivors are at a higher risk of developing hearing loss (HL) due to older age, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. However, the prevalence of HL among US cancer survivors remains unknown. Additionally, there is a lack of uniform HL screening guidelines for this enlarging population. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of subjective HL and objective HL by audiometry test among cancer survivors and compare them with the general population as well as to assess the performance of subjective HL questions in detecting true (ie, audiometry-confirmed) HL. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a cross-sectional design, adults between ages 20 and 80 years who had audiometry testing and responded to a hearing questionnaire from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2011-2012, 2015-2016, and 2017 to March 2020 prepandemic survey cycles) were selected. Data analysis was conducted from August 13, 2022, to July 26, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The weighted prevalence of subjective HL (troublesome hearing and tinnitus) and objective HL (speech-frequency HL and high-frequency HL) by audiometry were calculated. Analyses with χ2 testing and multiadjusted logistic regression models were used to compare HL between cancer survivors and the general population. To evaluate the performance of subjective HL questions as a tool to screen for objective HL by audiometry, areas under the curve were estimated using age- and gender-adjusted logistic regression. Results: Among the total 9337 participants (weighted n = 90 098 441; 51.2% women), 10.3% were cancer survivors. Compared with the general population, cancer survivors had a higher prevalence of troublesome hearing (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.11-1.84), tinnitus (AOR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.94-1.74), speech-frequency HL (AOR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.11-1.85), and high-frequency HL (AOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.29-2.34). When using the subjective HL tool and questioning regarding whether the participants were having troublesome hearing and/or tinnitus in screening for HL, the age- and gender-adjusted area under the curve was 0.88 in detecting speech-frequency HL and 0.90 in detecting high-frequency HL. Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that cancer survivors have a significantly higher prevalence of HL than the general population. Two subjective HL questions could potentially accurately identify those who have true HL and provide a simple and efficient screening tool for health care professionals. Cancer survivors and their families should be educated and encouraged to discuss hearing concerns, and health care professionals should facilitate raising awareness and provide early screening and timely referral when HL is identified.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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".