Association of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome With Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite certain studies indicating hearing impairments in individuals with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), the correlation between PCOS and sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) remains inconclusive. This study aimed to investigate the association between PCOS and SNHL. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to June 24, 2024. REVIEW METHODS: This meta-analysis included cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort studies examining the association between PCOS and SNHL without language or regional restrictions. Case reports, case series, animal studies, and in vitro studies were excluded. We adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and utilized the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. RESULTS: After performing the systematic review, we conducted a meta-analysis that included 489 patients from 5 studies: 349 patients with PCOS and 140 age- and sex-matched controls without PCOS. The meta-analysis compared the mean differences in frequency-specific pure-tone thresholds between patients with PCOS and matched controls, providing 95% confidence intervals for these differences. Given the expected clinical heterogeneity, we employed the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Our results revealed significant hearing loss at specific frequencies (1000, 4000, 8000, 10,000, 12,000, 14,000, 16,000, 18,000, and 20,000 Hz) in the PCOS group compared to the control group (P < .05). Furthermore, the degree of hearing loss is greater at higher frequencies. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrated an association between PCOS and SNHL, particularly at higher frequencies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".