Association of hearing loss and risk of depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have suggested a possible link between hearing loss and the risk of depression. However, the strength of this association remains uncertain across varying follow-up periods, age groups, cohort studies, and longitudinal study designs. Methods: We conducted an extensive literature search across PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases to retrieve pertinent studies. The quality of observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Synthesis and meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed using Stata 14.0. Funnel plot analysis and Egger's regression test were utilized to assess potential publication bias. Results: This meta-analysis comprised 24 cohort studies conducted between 2007 and 2024, with sample sizes ranging from 548 to 254,466 participants. Among these participants, 24,304 had experienced depression events. The pooling analysis shows that hearing loss is associated with an increased risk of depression (OR = 1.35; 95%CI: 1.27-1.44). In the subgroup analysis, the retrospective cohort exhibited a slightly higher risk of depression compared to the prospective cohort (OR = 1.43; 95% CI: 1.30-1.58). There are differences in the risk of depression among young, middle-aged, and older individuals, with older adults facing a higher risk (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.21-1.45). Additionally, the risk of depression was slightly higher in the sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) group compared to the non-SSNHL group (OR = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.27-2.07). Furthermore, in cohorts with a follow-up time ≥ 5 years, the risk of depression was higher compared to those with <5 years of follow-up (OR = 1.39; 95% CI: 1.26-1.54). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis shows that hearing loss increases the risk of depression. These findings provide evidence that hearing loss should be recognized as an independent risk factor for depression. Clinical trial registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42024502043.
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 | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".