Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Hearing Loss: A Prisma Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between type 2 diabetes and hearing loss. DATA SOURCES: Search conducted in PubMed and Scopus databases for articles published between January 2019 and April 2024. REVIEW METHODS: Quality assessment and risk of bias analysis were conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and meta-analyses of pooled data were performed with Cochrane's Review Manager. RESULTS: From 8354 initially identified articles, 17 met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of hearing loss in patients with type 2 diabetes range from 40.6% to 71.9%, which was significantly higher than in controls (odds ratio [OR]: 4.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22-14.37). The mean pure-tone audiometric thresholds of the diabetic group were 3.19 dB higher (95% CI: 1.08-5.19) and were higher for both low frequencies (1.11 dB, 95% CI: 0.62-1.57) and, more severely, for high frequencies (2.3 dB, 95% CI: 1.97-2.63). Patients with moderate (0.57%, 95% CI: 0.1-1.05) and severe-to-profound (0.95%, 95% CI: 0.02-1.87) hearing loss had higher mean HbA1c levels than controls. The prevalence of hearing loss was significantly higher among patients with a diagnosis of diabetes for more than 10 years (OR 2.07, 95% CI: 1.45-2.94). The gender of diabetic patients was found to have no influence. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of hearing loss among individuals with type 2 diabetes ranges from 40.6% to 71.9%. Compared to the control group, the risk of hearing loss is 4.19 times higher and is predominantly observed at higher frequencies. The duration of diabetes and HbA1c levels are significant factors in the prevalence of hearing loss.
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 | 0.035 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".