Hearing loss and cognition in the mid-to-late life transition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hearing loss is associated with cognitive decline in later life, but few studies have established whether this association emerges earlier in midlife. We evaluated the cross-sectional association between audiometric hearing loss and cognition in individuals spanning ages 53-65 years. We studied 1,486 participants in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study at a mean age of 61.2 (SD: 3.6), with 58.4% female, 46.4% Black, and 53.6% White. Hearing loss was defined as a pure tone average (PTA) threshold ≥25dB for speech (500-4000 Hz) and high (4000-8000 Hz) frequencies in the better hearing ear. Cognition was measured with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), digit symbol substitution test (DSST), and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test delay recall score (RAVLT). Linear regression models estimated mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between hearing loss in each frequency range and separate cognitive tests, adjusting for age, sex, education, race, health care access, diabetes, prevalent cardiovascular disease, stroke, hypertension, depression, body mass index, and smoking. Hearing loss (11% prevalence) in the speech detection range was associated with lower cognition in all tests (MoCA: -1.31 [95% CI:-1.81,-0.82]; DSST: -2.59 [-5.05,-0.14]; RAVLT: -0.69 [-1.23,-0.15]). High frequency hearing loss (43% prevalence) was also associated with lower cognition in (MoCA: -0.85 [-1.18, -0.52]; DSST: -2.82 [-4.43, -1.23]; and borderline associated with RAVLT: -0.32 [-0.67, 0.03]). Most hearing loss was mild. These findings in a population-based sample suggest that the associations between hearing loss and cognition may be detectable by midlife.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".