MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404318314 · doi:10.1044/2024_aja-24-00130

Associations Between Hearing Loss and Health-Related Costs: A Retrospective Population-Based Cohort Study

2024· article· en· W4404318314 on OpenAlex
Marcello Tonelli, Natasha Wiebe, Tiffany Boulton, Maoliosa Donald, Julie Evans, Brenda R. Hemmelgarn, Tanis Howarth, Meg Lunney, David Nicholas, Kara Schick‐Makaroff, Helen So, Stephanie Thompson, Scott Klarenbach, Braden Manns

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Audiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersGovernment of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeRetrospective cohort studyConfidence intervalHealth careHearing lossAmbulatoryMedical prescriptionPopulationDemographyCohort studyAmbulatory careCohortPrescription drugPediatricsEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Hearing loss (HL) is a leading cause of disability worldwide, but its health-related costs have been incompletely studied. Our objective was to examine the association between HL and direct health care costs and identify subgroups in which costs associated with HL are especially high. METHOD: This was a retrospective population-based cohort study of adults treated in a universal health care system between April 2008 and March 2019. HL was identified using administrative health data. We estimate health care costs in 2023 Canadian dollars, including costs for hospitalization, provider claims, ambulatory care visits, prescription medications, and long-term care (LTC). RESULTS: = 55 years [interquartile range: 43-68] vs. 35 years [24-50]) and had more comorbidities (1 [0-2] vs. 0 [0-1]) at baseline than participants without, whereas the likelihood of female sex, rural residence, and material deprivation were similar between groups with and without HL. Over median follow-up of 11.0 years, total age-sex adjusted annual health costs and each of its component costs were significantly higher in participants with HL compared to those without (annual total costs: $6,871, 95% confidence interval [CI] [$6,778, $6,962] vs. $4,716, 95% CI [$4,729, $4,763]). After full adjustment (a maximum of 29 comorbidities), annual costs remained significantly higher in participants with HL overall and for certain subcomponents (provider claims, ambulatory visits, and medications), whereas adjusted costs of hospitalization and LTC were lower among people with HL. The magnitude of the incremental costs among participants with HL was most pronounced for younger participants, men, or those with less comorbidity. Total projected annual direct health costs for Alberta residents with HL were $1.01 billion in 2023, of which $125 million (95% CI [$116, $135 million]) was attributable to HL specifically. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to those without HL, health costs were markedly higher among participants with HL, partially due to a higher burden of comorbidity. The relatively high population attributable costs of HL suggest that better prevention, recognition, and management of this condition could yield substantial economic benefits. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.27353439.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it