MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409473536 · doi:10.1177/00368504251335410

Cognitive assessment in hearing aid clinics: Is it feasible to implement in a National Health Service (NHS) setting?

2025· article· en· W4409473536 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Progress · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologistMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineHearing aidCognitionDementiaObservational studyInformed consentCognitive impairmentPhysical therapyFamily medicineAudiologyHearing lossPsychiatryDiseaseAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundCognitive impairment is common in older adults and negatively affects hearing aid use. Audiologists hold the opportunity to identify signs of undiagnosed cognitive impairment and tailor care to optimise hearing aid use.ObjectiveTo assess the feasibility of introducing a brief cognitive assessment in hearing aid appointments for older adults.MethodsProspective feasibility cohort study incorporating quantitative and observational data. Participants were patients aged ≥65 years, new or existing hearing aid users, attending an NHS community hospital hearing aid clinic. Clinical audiologists were trained to conduct the Ascertain Dementia 8 (AD8) and visually-adapted shortened version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (mini-MoCA). A research audiologist took informed consent, observed appointments recording outcomes and followed up participants at 3 months. Feasibility was assessed using the following outcome measures: practicality of implementation in a clinical setting and resource requirements; acceptability in terms of recruitment/completion rates; onward care; experiences through standardised intensity scoring of observed emotions and analysis of free-text observations of participant reactions, participants' comments and informal conversations with clinical audiologists.ResultsTwenty patients were recruited, average age 78.6 years, 14 (70%) attended alone. All completed cognitive assessment, average duration was 14 minutes. AD8 and mini-MoCA average scores were 2.4 (range: 0-7) and 12.8 (range: 8-15), respectively. Ten (50%) participants had AD8 scores and one (5%) a Mini-MoCA score indicating potential cognitive impairment. Four of those (40%) contacted their GP, three were referred for further cognitive evaluation, one was diagnosed with dementia, two were awaiting appointments.ConclusionsIntroducing cognitive assessment in hearing aid clinics seems feasible and may provide an opportunity for identifying cognitive impairment in older adults, though further research is needed to establish its clinical utility and impact on care pathways. There are considerable resource implications, highlighting the importance of involving professional organisations, healthcare funders and policy makers early in this discussion.

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)0.004
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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.402 · 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