Hearing loss and its association with all-cause and cause-specific mortality: A meta-analysis of cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine the epidemiological associations between hearing loss and the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cancer mortality. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase for cohort studies published from database inception to January 12, 2025, using relevant MeSH terms and keywords. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A random-effects model was applied for the meta-analysis. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by sequentially excluding individual studies to assess the robustness of the results. Subgroup analyses were performed based on hearing function measurement methods, study design, and continent. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test. Statistical analyses were conducted using Stata 14.0. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 36 cohort studies with a total of 6,364,914 participants, published between 1992 and 2024. Hearing loss was significantly associated with all-cause mortality (HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.13-1.31; I² = 95.7%, P < 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.12-1.33; I² = 52.4%, P < 0.001), and cancer mortality (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.02-1.22; I² = 51.2%, P = 0.016), after adjusting for demographics and comorbidities. Subgroup analysis showed that audiometrically measured hearing loss had a stronger effect than self-reported hearing loss (HR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.10-1.49; I² = 97.7%, P = 0.002). The risk of all-cause mortality was higher in prospective cohorts compared to retrospective cohorts (HR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.05-1.46; I² = 97.2%, P = 0.012). Additionally, the risk of all-cause mortality was slightly higher in studies from Asia compared to other continents (HR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.09-1.62; I² = 98.3%, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis indicates that hearing loss is associated with an increased risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality. Healthcare providers managing patients with hearing loss should consider its potential impact on overall health and longevity. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD 42025637635.
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 | 0.022 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.056 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".