MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117245507 · doi:10.1002/alz70857_098695

Sex differences in the relationship between hearing status and cognitive performance in individuals with mild cognitive impairment

2025· article· en· W7117245507 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicole Grant, Natalie A. Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionCognitive impairmentEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceCognitive testTest (biology)Elementary cognitive task

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Age-related hearing loss (HL) is associated with poorer cognition and increased risk of developing dementia. However, few studies have explored if sex affects the association between HL and cognition. We investigated the relationship between two hearing measures and performance on cognitive screening and neuropsychological tests in males and females with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHOD: Participants included 260 older adults with MCI from the COMPASS-ND study of the Canadian Consortium in Neurodegeneration in Aging. Participants were recruited from memory clinics and included normal hearing males (n = 93, mean age=70.9, mean education = 15.0, ApoE4 carrier=39%), HL males (n = 68, mean age=74.6, mean education = 15.3, %ApoE4 carrier=28%), normal hearing females (n = 63, mean age=70.3, mean education = 15.3, %ApoE4 carrier=38%), and HL females (n = 36, mean age=74.6, %ApoE4 carrier=42%). Groups did not differ in education, ApoE4 carrier status, or cardiovascular risk factors. Participants were categorized as normal hearing or HL based on a pure-tone audiometry screening (normal hearing=pure-tone threshold <25 dB HL at 2000 Hz). The Canadian Digit Triplet Test was used to measure speech-in-noise perception. Within each sex, we investigated if HL or speech-in-noise perception was associated with performance on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Rey Auditory Verbal Learning (RAVLT), Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R), and a facename association test. RESULT: = 5.2, p = 0.02). This difference was not observed in males and it was not observed in females when hearing dependent items on the MoCA were excluded. No effects of hearing status were observed on the more comprehensive RAVLT, BVMT-R, or Face Name Association test. Partial correlations (controlling for age) showed that speech-in-noise perception was significantly associated (p < .05) with performance on the MoCA (r = -0.17), RAVLT Immediate Recall (r = -0.19), and BVMT-R Immediate Recall (r = -0.2) in males, but not females. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate differing associations between sex, HL, and cognitive performance, with implications for cognitive assessment. The findings suggest that the presence of MCI may be over-estimated in females with HL when a simple screening test is used and highlight the importance of using comprehensive measures to assess cognition in older adults, especially those with HL.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→