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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".