MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6945342380 · doi:10.23641/asha.19233297

Sex differences in auditory-cognitive associations (Al-Yawer et al., 2022)

2022· dataset· en· W6945342380 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuefigshare ASHA Publications · 2022
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionHearing lossAudiometryCognitive testEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceLinear regressionCognitive Assessment System

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Hearing loss (HL) is associated with cognitive performance in older adults, including performance on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a brief cognitive screening test. Yet, despite well-established sex-related differences in both hearing and cognition, very few studies have tested whether there are sex-related differences in auditory-cognitive associations.Method: In the current cross-sectional retrospective analysis, we examined sex-related differences in hearing and cognition in 193 healthy older adults (M = 69 years, 60% women). Hearing was measured using audiometry (pure-tone average [PTA] of thresholds at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz in the worse ear). Cognition was assessed using the MoCA. Additionally, we calculated MoCA scores with hearing-dependent subtests excluded from scoring (MoCA-Modified).Results: Men and women did not differ in age, education, or history of depression. Women had better hearing than men. Women with normal hearing were more likely to pass the MoCA compared with their counterparts with HL. In contrast, the likelihood of passing the MoCA did not depend on hearing status in men. Linear regression analysis showed an interaction between sex and PTA in the worse ear. PTAs were significantly correlated with both MoCA and MoCA-Modified scores in women, whereas this was not observed in the men.Conclusions: This study is one of the first to demonstrate significant sex-related differences in auditory-cognitive associations even when hearing-related cognitive test items are omitted. Potential mechanisms underlying these female-specific effects are discussed. Supplemental Material S1. Demographic and cognitive variables for those with normal hearing and hearing loss (based on the cutoff of a 25 dB HL pure-tone average of thresholds at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz in the worse ear). Supplemental Material S2. Regression models for MoCA scores examining the interaction between sex and hearing in the better ear (based on pure-tone average of thresholds at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz in the better ear). Al-Yawer, F., Bruce, H., Li, K. Z. H., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., & Phillips, N. A. (2022). Sex-related differences in the associations between Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores and pure-tone measures of hearing. American Journal of Audiology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJA-21-00131

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuefigshare ASHA PublicationsSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207