The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gender differences in a longitudinal study of age-associated hearing loss
Abstract
Current studies are inconclusive regarding specific patterns of gender differences in age-associated hearing loss. This paper presents results from the largest and longest longitudinal study reported to date of changes in pure-tone hearing thresholds in men and women screened for otological disorders and noise-induced hearing loss. Since 1965, the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging has collected hearing thresholds from 500 to 8000 Hz using a pulsed-tone tracking procedure. Mixed-effects regression models were used to estimate longitudinal patterns of change in hearing thresholds in 681 men and 416 women with no evidence of otological disease, unilateral hearing loss, or noise-induced hearing loss. The results show (1) hearing sensitivity declines more than twice as fast in men as in women at most ages and frequencies, (2) longitudinal declines in hearing sensitivity are detectable at all frequencies among men by age 30, but the age of onset of decline is later in women at most frequencies and varies by frequency in women, (3) women have more sensitive hearing than men at frequencies above 1000 Hz but men have more sensitive hearing than women at lower frequencies, (4) learning effects bias cross-sectional and short-term longitudinal studies, and (5) hearing levels and longitudinal patterns of change are highly variable, even in this highly selected group. These longitudinal findings document gender differences in hearing levels and show that age-associated hearing loss occurs even in a group with relatively low-noise occupations and with no evidence of noise-induced hearing loss.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Davis, A. C., Ostri, B., & Parving, A. (1991) · Acta Oto-Laryngologica · doi:10.3109/00016489109127251 · Cited by 80
Cited by
Agrawal, Y. (2008) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.168.14.1522 · Cited by 977
Syka, J. (2002) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00002.2002 · Cited by 369
The analysis of multivariate longitudinal data: A review
Verbeke, G., Fieuws, S., Molenberghs, G., & Davidian, M. (2014) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280212445834 · Cited by 290
Ter Haar, G., Venker-van Haagen, A. J., Van Den Brom, W. E., Van Sluijs, F. J., & Smoorenburg, G. F. (2008) · Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1939-1676.2008.0126.x · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Pearson, J. D., Morrell, C. H., Gordon-Salant, S., Brant, L. J., Metter, E. J., Klein, L. L., & Fozard, J. L.
- Venue
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
- Publisher
- Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
- Published
- 1995-02-01
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1196-1205
- ISSN
- 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-8524
- OpenAlex
- W2078791136
- Cited by
- 416
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gender differences in a longitudinal study of age-associated hearing loss. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1121/1.412231
- The paper
- Pearson, J. D., Morrell, C. H., Gordon-Salant, S., Brant, L. J., Metter, E. J., Klein, L. L., & Fozard, J. L. (1995). Gender differences in a longitudinal study of age-associated hearing loss. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.412231
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.