Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 6;19(3):e0298048. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298048

Sex differences in associated factors for age-related hearing loss

Dong Woo Nam 1, Min-Hyun Park 2,3,*,#, Su Ji Jeong 3, Kook Lae Lee 4,5, Ji Won Kim 4,5, Ji Bong Jeong 5,*,#
Editor: Paul Hinckley Delano6
PMCID: PMC10917258  PMID: 38446784

Abstract

The prevalence and age of onset of hearing loss differ according to sex. This study aimed to identify associated factors for age-related hearing loss (ARHL) and determine whether there are differences between males and females regarding associated factors for ARHL. This cross-sectional study used data from adults who underwent medical examinations including hearing tests from 2011 to 2021. A total of 2,349 individuals were included. The study conducted sex-specific analyses using both univariate and multiple regression. Univariate analysis employed logistic regression, while multiple regression involved variable selection through the augmented backward elimination method. Separate multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted for each sex. In the univariate analysis, among males, age, underweight, alcohol consumption, weight, and height exhibited statistical significance. Among females, age, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, obesity, sarcopenia, weight, height, age at menarche, and duration of hormone exposure were found to be significant factors. However, in the multiple logistic regression model for males, underweight, and smoking emerged as significant, while in females, age, weight, obesity, and age at menarche retained their significance. We found that there are different associated factors for ARHL in each sex. Assessment and counseling for smoking, obstetric history, underweight, and obesity may be beneficial in managing patients with ARHL.

Introduction

Approximately 157 million people, accounting for 20.3% of the world’s population, suffered from hearing loss in 2019, and this prevalence is expected to increase as the population ages [1]. Hearing loss causes difficulties in spoken communication, which negatively affects various aspects of an individual’s life. Decreased cognitive function [2], loneliness [3], depression [4], and high unemployment rates [5] are observed in patients with hearing loss. It is almost impossible to improve hearing loss once it has progressed. Therefore, it is necessary to identify preventative measures. The most common risk factor of hearing loss is aging.

Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is characterized by progressive, slow, persistent, bilateral, and symmetrical high-frequency hearing loss. Hearing deterioration may begin in individuals in their 20s and early 30s, although it usually occurs in people over the age of 50 years [6]. ARHL can be regarded as a multifactorial process of otological diseases that overlap with acquired hearing stress, trauma, and aging [7].

Chronic noise exposure and ototoxic drugs are well-known risk factors for hearing loss. Strong associations have been reported between a family history of hearing impairment and ARHL [8]. ARHL has been reported to be associated with Caucasian ethnicity [9] and lower socioeconomic status [10]. Associations between hearing loss and smoking [11], alcohol [12], and other chronic diseases, such as hypertension [13], diabetes [14], dyslipidemia [15], obesity [16], underweight [17], sarcopenia [18] and adiposity [19] have been reported. Short stature has been reported to be associated with a higher risk of hearing loss, potentially due to fetal growth issues involving insulin-like growth factor 1, which affects cochlear development [20].

In addition, there are differences in hearing loss according to sex: the prevalence is lower in females than in males [21] and the age at onset of hearing loss is later [22]. Research indicates a sex-specific association between factors related to abdominal fat and hearing loss, with males showing a correlation with high-frequency hearing loss, and females exhibiting a correlation with low-frequency hearing loss [23]. Research on risk factors for hearing loss has also noted sex-based distinctions, where, for instance, high triglyceride levels and a history of smoking have been identified as risk factors among males, while a high body mass index (BMI) has been associated with females [24].

In females, reproductive factors have been associated with various chronic conditions. For instance, associations have been reported between increased parity and breast cancer [25], age at menarche and cardiovascular diseases [26], as well as the duration of estrogen exposure and cardiovascular diseases [27]. However, research on the association between obstetric history and ARHL is currently limited. Due to the uncertainties related to onset and risk factors, we designed a large-scale retrospective study using health examination data. The purposes of this study were to identify associated factors for ARHL and determine whether there are differences between males and females in terms of associated factors for ARHL.

Materials and methods

Participants

This study used data from adults who underwent medical examinations at Boramae Medical Center from January 2011 to December 2021. Data collection began January 2022 and concluded July 2022. A total of 22,332 individuals who underwent medical examinations, including hearing tests, were screened. The context of their visit was primarily oriented toward healthcare and preventive healthcare objectives. Among them, 2,349 participants were analyzed, excluding those younger than 60, those with missing data, those with a history of occupational noise exposure, those with hearing loss other than ARHL, those with asymmetric hearing loss, and those with central nervous system diseases (Fig 1). All data obtained from participants were anonymized before statistical analysis. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Boramae Medical Center (IRB no. 10-2021-143), and the requirement for informed consent was waived.

Fig 1. CONSORT flow diagram.

Fig 1

Data collection

The participants fasted for 12 hours before visiting our medical center. Clinical information and test results were collected during the health examination. The height and weight of all patients were measured while standing. Body composition analysis was performed by a trained nurse using an InBody 720 (Biospace Co. Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea) following the manufacturer’s protocol. appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM) and visceral fat area (VFA) were automatically calculated using the InBody 720. Clinical information, including age, sex, drinking, and smoking, was collected. For female participants, medical history, such as age at menarche, history of childbirth, age at menopause, and the use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was also investigated. Blood tests were performed, including evaluation of fasting glucose, glycated hemoglobin, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglyceride levels [28]. Air conduction pure tone hearing thresholds were measured at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz in both ears of the participants.

Definitions

The average hearing threshold was calculated as the average of the 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz pure-tone hearing thresholds. Normal hearing was defined as all hearing thresholds at 500–4000 Hz were 25 dB or less in the better ear (the ear with the lower average hearing threshold). ARHL was defined as a 2 kHz threshold greater than 25 dB in the better ear and a 4 kHz threshold equal to or greater than the 2 kHz threshold in the same ear, which represents a modification of the criteria originally proposed by Sousa, C. S. et al [29]. Hearing loss that did not fall into either of these categories was excluded from the analysis. Asymmetric hearing loss was defined as a difference of 20 dB or more in the average hearing threshold between the two ears and was excluded from the analysis [30]. Weight was measured in kg, and height was measured in cm. Obesity, underweight, visceral adiposity, and sarcopenia were used as the body composition parameters. Obesity was defined as BMI ≥ 25, while underweight was defined as BMI < 18.5 [31]. Visceral adiposity was evaluated via VFA, measured using an InBody 720. Subjects whose VFA ≥ 100 cm2 were categorized as part of the visceral adiposity group, while those with VFA < 100 cm2 were assigned to the normal group [32]. ASM was calculated as the sum of the lean skeletal muscle masses of the bilateral upper and lower limbs. Sarcopenia was evaluated using ASM% calculated as ASM × 100/weight. Sarcopenia was defined as having an ASM% below 29.0 in males and under 22.9 in females [33]. Hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg, or the use of antihypertensive medications. Diabetes was defined as fasting glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL, glycated hemoglobin level ≥ 6.5%, or use of antidiabetic medications. Dyslipidemia was defined as triglyceride level ≥ 150 mg/dL, HDL-C < 40 mg/dL in males and < 50 mg/dL in females, or the use of anti-dyslipidemia medications. The duration of hormone exposure was defined as the period between menarche and menopause [27], as 0 for non-menarche, and as the period from menarche to the examination day for non-menopausal women.

Statistical analyses

In demographics, categorical data, that is, sex, comorbidity, drinking, and smoking were expressed as frequency and ratio of the number of participants. Continuous data such as age, weight, height, and age at menarche were presented as the mean and standard deviation.

When comparing the characteristics of the normal hearing and ARHL groups, we used t-tests for continuous variables, Chi-squared tests for categorical variables, and Cochran Armitage trend test for smoking. For female participants, the two groups were compared on female-specific characteristics such as history of childbirth, age at menarche, and hormone exposure duration.

Sex-stratified analyses were conducted, employing both univariate and multiple regression techniques. Univariate regression analysis involved logistic regression, assessing ARHL in relation to each individual explanatory variable. Subsequently, multiple regression analysis was carried out exclusively on the variables chosen through the variable selection process.

Variable selection was performed using the augmented backward elimination (ABE) method, encompassing all potential variables for each sex and employing a significance level of 0.2, with a change-in-estimate threshold of 0.05 [34]. Multiple logistic regression analyses were separately performed for each sex, with a significance level set at 0.05 (Fig 1).

To assess multicollinearity in our regression models, we calculated the variance inflation factor (VIF). Initially, the VIF was computed for the multiple regression model incorporating all the considered variables. This was followed by computing the VIF for the simplified model, which was derived after the process of variable selection. The purpose of this analysis was to ensure that multicollinearity remains within acceptable limits, defined by having all coefficients in both models below the threshold value of 5.

The statistical package R (ver. 4.2.2, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) was used for data analysis. In particular, the ’abe’ package was used for ABE.

Results

Demographics

Of the 2,349 participants, 1,104 males (47%) and 1,245 females (53%) were included, with a mean age of 66.5 ± 5.6 years (range 60–94 years) (Table 1). Participants with ARHL were 829 (35%), and participants with hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, obesity, underweight, visceral adiposity, and sarcopenia were 1,198 (51%), 445 (19%), 1,165 (50%), 801 (34%), 78(3.3%), 1,001 (43%), and 317 (14%), respectively. There were 1,800 drinkers (77%), 293 current smokers (13%), 545 former smokers (23%), and 1,511 non-smokers (64%).

Table 1. Participants characteristics.

Variables Total n = 2,349 Normal hearing n = 1,520 ARHL n = 829 P-value
Age 66.5±5.6 64.7±4.2 69.8±6.3 < .001
Sex < .001
    Male 1,104 (47) 607 (40) 497 (60)
    Female 1,245 (53) 913 (60) 332 (40)
Hypertension 1,198 (51) 723 (48) 475 (57) < .001
Diabetes 445 (19) 256 (17) 189 (23) < .001
Dyslipidemia 1,165 (50) 740 (49) 425 (51) .249
BMI < .001
    Normal 1,470 (63) 975 (64) 495 (60)
    Obesity 801 (34) 509 (34) 292 (35)
    Underweight 78 (3.3) 36 (2.4) 42 (5.1)
Visceral adiposity 1001 (43) 633 (42) 368 (44) .214
Sarcopenia 317 (14) 176 (12) 141 (17) < .001
Alcohol 1,800 (77) 1,165 (77) 635 (77) 1.000
Smoking < .001
    Never 1,511 (64) 1,049 (69) 462 (56)
    Former 545 (23) 321 (21) 224 (27)
    Current 293 (13) 150 (9.9) 143 (17)
Weight (kg) 61.6±10.4 61.5±10.2 61.7±10.6 .611
Height (cm) 160.6±9.1 160.3±9.2 161.2±8.8 .021

Abbreviations: ARHL, age-related hearing loss; BMI, body mass index.

Among the 829 participants with ARHL, 497 were male (60%) and 332 were female (40%), and the mean age was 69.8 ± 6.3 years (range 60–94 years). Among the participants with ARHL, 475 (57%), 189 (23%), 425 (51%), 292 (35%), 42 (5.1%), 368(44%), and 141 (17%) had hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, obesity, underweight, visceral adiposity and sarcopenia, respectively. Among the participants with ARHL, 635 were alcohol consumers (77%), 143 current smokers (17%), 224 former smokers (27%), and 462 non-smokers (56%) (Table 1).

There were significant differences in several characteristics between the ARHL group and the normal hearing group. The ARHL group exhibited greater age (t-test, P < .001), and taller height (t-test, P = .021), and the proportion of ARHL was higher in male, hypertension, diabetes, and sarcopenia (Chi-squared test, P < .001 each)). BMI was found to have a significant association with ARHL (Chi-squared test, P < .001), as well as smoking and ARHL (Cochran-Armitage trend test, P < .001). There was no significant difference in body weight (t-test, P = .611), dyslipidemia (Chi-squared test, P = .249), visceral adiposity (Chi-squared test, P = .214) and alcohol consumption (Chi-squared test, P = 1.000).

Univariate logistic regression analysis by sex

Univariate logistic regression analysis of ARHL showed that in males, age (P < .001), underweight (P = .001), alcohol consumption (P = .039), weight (P < .001), and height (P < .001) were significant, and the odds ratios (ORs) for the variables except age and underweight were less than 1. In females, age (P < .001), hypertension (P < .001), diabetes (P = .003), dyslipidemia (P = .003), obesity (P = .002), sarcopenia (P < .001), age at menarche (P < .001) were significant with an OR greater than 1. Weight (P = .034), height (P < .001), hormone exposure duration (P < .001) had an OR less than 1 and were significant (Table 2).

Table 2. Univariate logistic regression analysis of the association between age-related hearing loss and multiple explanatory variables, stratified by sex.

Variables Male Female
OR 95% CI P-value OR 95% CI P-value
Age 1.209 1.175–1.245 < .001 1.218 1.187–1.252 < .001
Hypertension 1.119 0.881–1.422 .358 1.745 1.355–2.251 < .001
Diabetes 1.158 0.874–1.534 .307 1.639 1.178–2.266 .003
Dyslipidemia 1.016 0.800–1.289 .897 1.465 1.135–1.894 .003
BMI
    Normal Reference Reference
    Obesity 0.826 0.642–1.061 .135 1.524 1.168–1.987 .002
    Underweight 3.557 1.710–8.119 .001 1.806 0.919–3.421 .076
Visceral adiposity 0.871 0.687–1.105 .255 1.241 0.959–1.604 .099
Sarcopenia 1.225 0.872–1.720 .240 2.009 1.419–2.829 < .001
Alcohol 0.684 0.476–0.980 .039 0.809 0.623–1.054 .115
Smoking
    Never Reference Reference
    Former 0.844 0.635–1.121 .240 0.864 0.312–2.065 .766
    Current 1.241 0.894–1.726 .198 0.821 0.183–2.703 .758
Weight (kg) 0.973 0.960–0.985 < .001 0.984 0.968–0.999 .034
Height (cm) 0.956 0.935–0.976 < .001 0.946 0.925–0.968 < .001
History of childbirth 1.019 0.612–1.765 .943
Age at menarche (years) 1.251 1.166–1.344 < .001
Hormone exposure duration (years) 0.953 0.931–0.975 < .001
HRT 0.949 0.660–1.345 .773

Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index; HRT, hormone replacement therapy.

Multiple logistic regression analysis by sex

In males, the following variables were selected through the ABE method: age, height, BMI, and smoking status. After performing multiple logistic regression analysis with these variables, the ORs and 95% confidence intervals for each explanatory variable were 1.212 (1.178–1.250) for age, 0.977 (0.953–1.000) for height, 1.953 (1.342–2.854) for current smoking, 1.066 (0.770–1.480) for past smoking, 3.020 (1.350–7.311) for underweight, and 0.920 (0.694–1.218) for obesity.

In females, the following variables were selected: age, weight, height, hypertension, diabetes, BMI, and age at menarche. After performing multiple analysis with these variables, the OR and 95% confidence interval of each explanatory variable was 1.200 (1.167–1.236) for age, 0.953 (0.921–0.983) for weight, 1.016 (0.990–1.051) for height, 1.237 (0.906–1.684) for hypertension, 1.367 (0.854–2.166) for diabetes, 0.995 (0.412–2.309) for underweight, 2.102 (1.315–3.434) for obesity, and 1.119 (1.033–1.213) for age at menarche (Table 3).

Table 3. Multiple logistic regression analysis of the association between age-related hearing loss and multiple explanatory variables, stratified by sex.

Variables Male Female
OR 95% CI P-value OR 95% CI P-value
Age (years) 1.212 1.178–1.250 < .001 1.200 1.167–1.236 < .001
Hypertension 1.237 0.906–1.684 .179
Diabetes 1.367 0.854–2.166 .187
BMI
    Normal Reference Reference
    Underweight 3.020 1.350–7.311 .010 0.995 0.412–2.309 .990
    Obesity 0.920 0.694–1.218 .561 2.102 1.315–3.434 .002
Smoking
    Never Reference Reference
    Former 1.066 0.770–1.480 .700
    Current 1.953 1.342–2.854 .001
Weight (kg) 0.953 0.921–0.983 .004
Height (cm) 0.977 0.953–1.000 .054 1.016 0.990–1.051 .179
Age at menarche (years) 1.119 1.033–1.213 .006

Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index.

When comparing the results to those of a univariate logistic regression analysis, it was observed that in males, smoking was not significant in the univariate analysis but became significant in the multiple analysis. Conversely, alcohol consumption, weight, and height were significant in the univariate analysis but were excluded in the multiple analysis. Among females, dyslipidemia, sarcopenia, weight, and hormone exposure duration were significant in the univariate analysis, but they were not included in the final model in the multiple analysis. Hypertension, diabetes, and height were included in the multiple analysis, but they were not found to be significant. Notably, in the case of height, the OR was less than 1 in the univariate analysis (0.946), but it was greater than 1 in the multiple model (1.016).

Discussion

Although numerous factors associated with ARHL have been reported, in practice it is necessary to prioritize associated factors according to sex to help prevent ARHL. This retrospective study included a large number of participants and various covariates. Through ABE, it was identified that common associated factors for ARHL differ between sexes.

There are several methods for variable selection; backward elimination is appropriate for the prognostic model, and the ABE is suitable for the etiologic model [35]. As this was a study on the associated factors for ARHL, ABE was used.

Obesity was significant in the multiple analysis among females (P = .002), but was eliminated during the variable selection process for males. This outcome partially accounts for the inconsistency observed in prior studies regarding obesity as a contributing factor to ARHL. Inadequate adjustments for sex, weight, or smoking in previous research may have also contributed to this disparity. Notably, underweight was found to be significant in males, while low body weight was found to be significant in females, supporting earlier literature that identified underweight status as a risk factor for ARHL [17]. Smoking was significantly associated with ARHL in males. The OR increased for former (1.066) or current (1.953) smokers compared to those for never smokers, suggesting the dose-response relationship. But the OR in former smokers was not significant (P = .700). This is presumably due to the inhomogeneity of the participants of former smokers. Smoking, initially non-significant in univariate analysis, later proved significant in variable selection, highlighting the risk of excluding important variables when using univariate regression, consistent with prior research [36].

Unlike in the case of males, smoking was not included as a variable in the multiple logistic regression model for females. This result was based on the substantial disparity in the proportions of non-smokers between the two sex groups, with non-smokers accounting for 28% (304/1,104) of the male participants and 97% (1,207/1,245) of the female participants. As a result, the analysis pertaining to smokers was found to lack statistical significance and was consequently eliminated during the variable selection process.

Although many studies have been conducted on the difference between hearing loss in males and females, including the differences in associated factors for hearing loss according to sex [23, 24, 37], these studies were conducted with variables common to both males and females. The strength of this study is that it analyzed sex differences in ARHL by adding female-specific variables related to menarche and menopause, in addition to known associated factors for ARHL. To identify sex-specific associations, stratification, traditional product terms, and augmented product term methods have been proposed as research methods; in this study, the stratification method was selected to include female-specific variables.

There was a statistically significant difference in height between the ARHL and normal hearing groups, with the ARHL group being taller (t-test, P = .021, Table 1). However, subsequent univariate regression analysis by sex showed a statistically significant difference, with both males and females having an OR for height below 1 (P < .001 for each, Table 2). These results demonstrate Simpson’s paradox, highlighting that associations may vary when examining the entire cohort and subgroups stratified by sex.

The results of both univariate and multiple analyses in this study exhibited inconsistencies. Variables that displayed significance in the univariate analysis, such as dyslipidemia, sarcopenia, weight, and duration of hormone exposure in females, were either excluded from the multiple analysis or lost their significance, as observed in the cases of hypertension, diabetes, and height. This inconsistency can be attributed to the strong association between each variable and age, which also exhibited a substantial correlation with ARHL. For instance, in females, sarcopenia demonstrated a significant negative association with ARHL in the univariate analysis (OR = 2.009, P < .001) but was subsequently eliminated in the multiple analysis. Notably, female participants with sarcopenia had an average age of 69.8 years, which was 3.7 years higher than female participants without sarcopenia. Given that the OR for age was estimated to be 1.2, the calculated OR for the age difference between the two groups was 1.23.7 = 1.96. Consequently, as the variance in ARHL between females with and without sarcopenia is primarily explained by age, sarcopenia was removed from the variable selection process. As exemplified in the case of age and sarcopenia mentioned above, when introducing multiple explanatory variables in multiple regression, it is imperative to consider multicollinearity.

In the multiple analysis for females, the OR for age at menarche yielded statistical significance, with an OR of 1.119 (P = .006). This finding may suggest a reduced risk of ARHL associated with early estrogen exposure, aligning with previous research indicating estrogen’s protective role in hearing preservation [38, 39]. However, it’s notable that while age at menarche was included as a variable, the duration of hormone exposure was excluded from the model. In our study, the duration of hormone exposure was defined as the timespan from menarche to menopause, irrespective of HRT utilization or its duration. In this study, we investigated the use of HRT, but we did not assess the duration of treatment, resulting in an incomplete analysis of its potential effects. Therefore, further comprehensive research is imperative to address this aspect comprehensively.

As this is a cross-sectional study, it is not possible to derive a causal relationship; therefore, further studies are required to confirm these findings. Additionally, the cross-sectional design of this study could have led to relatively elevated odds ratio values. Furthermore, owing to the limited sample size in this study, it’s possible that only a subset of the variables considered significant here might remain significant in a larger study. Consequently, these limitations should be taken into account when interpreting the study’s results. At the time of data collection, the associated factors related to hearing loss, such as history of ototoxic drug exposure, family history of hearing loss, history of head trauma and infectious diseases, were not assessed. A tympanic examination was not performed, and only air conduction hearing thresholds were examined; therefore, conductive hearing loss was not excluded. Furthermore, an investigation into the history of sudden hearing loss was not conducted. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that bilateral conductive or bilateral sudden hearing loss is uncommon among adults. Furthermore, the presence of unilateral conductive or unilateral sudden hearing loss did not impact the results, as the analysis focused on better ear hearing and excluded cases of asymmetric hearing loss. In addition, this study was conducted among individuals who voluntarily visited health check-up centers for the purposes of health management and prevention. As a result, the study may not be representative of the general population, and, consequently, there exists the potential for bias.

Conclusions

Specific associated factors for ARHL in males include underweight and smoking. Specific associated factors for ARHL in females include obesity, low weight, and late menarche. Assessment and counseling regarding smoking, obstetric history, underweight, and obesity may be helpful in the management of patients with ARHL.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Detailed multiple logistic regression analysis (male).

(PDF)

pone.0298048.s001.pdf (159.5KB, pdf)
S2 Table. Detailed multiple logistic regression analysis (female).

(PDF)

pone.0298048.s002.pdf (153.6KB, pdf)

Data Availability

This study investigated the association between various factors and hearing loss. In addition to age and sex, it encompassed sensitive information, including baseline medical conditions, physical measurements such as height and weight, and obstetric history. While no personally identifiable information was included, the combination of this diverse information could potentially lead to individual identification. Therefore, in this study, we have chosen not to make the complete dataset publicly available. But the datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available and can be provided upon a reasonable request and with the approval of the IRB. For further inquiries or data requests, please directly contact the IRB of Boramae Medical Center at brmirb@gmail.com or 82-2-870-1851.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Collaborators GBDHL. Hearing loss prevalence and years lived with disability, 1990–2019: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2021;397(10278):996–1009. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00516-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lin FR. Hearing loss and cognition among older adults in the United States. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011;66(10):1131–6. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glr115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kramer SE, Kapteyn TS, Kuik DJ, Deeg DJ. The association of hearing impairment and chronic diseases with psychosocial health status in older age. J Aging Health. 2002;14(1):122–37. doi: 10.1177/089826430201400107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Li CM, Zhang X, Hoffman HJ, Cotch MF, Themann CL, Wilson MR. Hearing impairment associated with depression in US adults, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005–2010. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;140(4):293–302. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2014.42 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Jung D, Bhattacharyya N. Association of hearing loss with decreased employment and income among adults in the United States. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2012;121(12):771–5. doi: 10.1177/000348941212101201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Arvin B, Prepageran N, Raman R. "High frequency presbycusis"-is there an earlier onset? Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;65(Suppl 3):480–4. doi: 10.1007/s12070-011-0356-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gates GA, Mills JH. Presbycusis. Lancet. 2005;366(9491):1111–20. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67423-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.McMahon CM, Kifley A, Rochtchina E, Newall P, Mitchell P. The contribution of family history to hearing loss in an older population. Ear Hear. 2008;29(4):578–84. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31817349d6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Agrawal Y, Platz EA, Niparko JK. Prevalence of hearing loss and differences by demographic characteristics among US adults: data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2004. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(14):1522–30. doi: 10.1001/archinte.168.14.1522 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cruickshanks KJ, Nondahl DM, Tweed TS, Wiley TL, Klein BE, Klein R, et al. Education, occupation, noise exposure history and the 10-yr cumulative incidence of hearing impairment in older adults. Hear Res. 2010;264(1–2):3–9. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2009.10.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kumar A, Gulati R, Singhal S, Hasan A, Khan A. The effect of smoking on the hearing status-a hospital based study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7(2):210–4. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2013/4968.2730 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Qian P, Zhao Z, Liu S, Xin J, Liu Y, Hao Y, et al. Alcohol as a risk factor for hearing loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2023;18(1):e0280641. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280641 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Agarwal S, Mishra A, Jagade M, Kasbekar V, Nagle SK. Effects of hypertension on hearing. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;65(Suppl 3):614–8. doi: 10.1007/s12070-013-0630-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kim MB, Zhang Y, Chang Y, Ryu S, Choi Y, Kwon MJ, et al. Diabetes mellitus and the incidence of hearing loss: a cohort study. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(2):717–26. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw243 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Evans MB, Tonini R, Shope CD, Oghalai JS, Jerger JF, Insull W Jr., et al. Dyslipidemia and auditory function. Otol Neurotol. 2006;27(5):609–14. doi: 10.1097/01.mao.0000226286.19295.34 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hu H, Tomita K, Kuwahara K, Yamamoto M, Uehara A, Kochi T, et al. Obesity and risk of hearing loss: A prospective cohort study. Clin Nutr. 2020;39(3):870–5. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2019.03.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Koo JS, Kim SY. Association of Body Mass Index with Hearing Loss in Korean Adult Population. J Pers Med. 2022;12(5). doi: 10.3390/jpm12050786 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lee J, Han K, Song JJ, Im GJ, Chae SW. Sarcopenia and Hearing Loss in Older Koreans: Findings from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) 2010. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0150281. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wang J, Sung V, Lycett K, Carew P, Liu RS, Grobler A, et al. How body composition influences hearing status by mid-childhood and mid-life: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. Int J Obes (Lond). 2018;42(10):1771–81. doi: 10.1038/s41366-018-0170-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Barrenas ML, Bratthall A, Dahlgren J. The association between short stature and sensorineural hearing loss. Hear Res. 2005;205(1–2):123–30. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2005.03.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Helzner EP, Cauley JA, Pratt SR, Wisniewski SR, Zmuda JM, Talbott EO, et al. Race and sex differences in age-related hearing loss: the Health, Aging and Body Composition Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(12):2119–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.00525.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pearson JD, Morrell CH, Gordon-Salant S, Brant LJ, Metter EJ, Klein LL, et al. Gender differences in a longitudinal study of age-associated hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am. 1995;97(2):1196–205. doi: 10.1121/1.412231 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lee Y, Park M. Relationships Among Factors Relevant to Abdominal Fat and Age-Related Hearing Loss. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;10(4):309–14. doi: 10.21053/ceo.2017.00017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Helzner EP, Patel AS, Pratt S, Sutton-Tyrrell K, Cauley JA, Talbott E, et al. Hearing sensitivity in older adults: associations with cardiovascular risk factors in the health, aging and body composition study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(6):972–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03444.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Anderson KN, Schwab RB, Martinez ME. Reproductive risk factors and breast cancer subtypes: a review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;144(1):1–10. doi: 10.1007/s10549-014-2852-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Won JC, Hong JW, Noh JH, Kim DJ. Association Between Age at Menarche and Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Diseases in Korean Women: The 2010 to 2013 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(18):e3580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mishra SR, Chung HF, Waller M, Mishra GD. Duration of estrogen exposure during reproductive years, age at menarche and age at menopause, and risk of cardiovascular disease events, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2021;128(5):809–21. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.16524 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kim SH, Kang HW, Jeong JB, Lee DS, Ahn DW, Kim JW, et al. Association of obesity, visceral adiposity, and sarcopenia with an increased risk of metabolic syndrome: A retrospective study. PLoS One. 2021;16(8):e0256083. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256083 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sousa CS, Castro Junior N, Larsson EJ, Ching TH. Risk factors for presbycusis in a socio-economic middle-class sample. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;75(4):530–6. doi: 10.1016/S1808-8694(15)30492-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kurioka T, Sano H, Furuki S, Yamashita T. Speech discrimination impairment of the worse-hearing ear in asymmetric hearing loss. Int J Audiol. 2021;60(1):54–9. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2020.1795282 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Region WHOWP. The Asia-Pacific perspective: redefining obesity and its treatment. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Jeon HH, Lee YK, Kim DH, Pak H, Shin SY, Seo JH. Risk for metabolic syndrome in the population with visceral fat area measured by bioelectrical impedance analysis. Korean J Intern Med. 2021;36(1):97–105. doi: 10.3904/kjim.2018.427 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kim YS, Lee Y, Chung YS, Lee DJ, Joo NS, Hong D, et al. Prevalence of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity in the Korean population based on the Fourth Korean National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2012;67(10):1107–13. doi: 10.1093/gerona/gls071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bursac Z, Gauss CH, Williams DK, Hosmer DW. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code Biol Med. 2008;3:17. doi: 10.1186/1751-0473-3-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Heinze G, Dunkler D. Five myths about variable selection. Transpl Int. 2017;30(1):6–10. doi: 10.1111/tri.12895 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Sun GW, Shook TL, Kay GL. Inappropriate use of bivariable analysis to screen risk factors for use in multivariable analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(8):907–16. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(96)00025-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Scinicariello F, Przybyla J, Carroll Y, Eichwald J, Decker J, Breysse PN. Age and sex differences in hearing loss association with depressive symptoms: analyses of NHANES 2011–2012. Psychol Med. 2019;49(6):962–8. doi: 10.1017/S0033291718001617 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kim MT, Lee JH, Carpena NT, Lee MY, Chung PS, Jung JY. Estrogen Replacement Reduces Hearing Threshold Shifts and Cochlear Hair Cell Loss After Acoustic Overexposure in Ovariectomized Rats. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;14(1):61–8. doi: 10.21053/ceo.2019.01662 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Shuster BZ, Depireux DA, Mong JA, Hertzano R. Sex differences in hearing: Probing the role of estrogen signaling. J Acoust Soc Am. 2019;145(6):3656. doi: 10.1121/1.5111870 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Paul Hinckley Delano

14 Sep 2023

PONE-D-23-24622Sex differences in risk factors for age-related hearing lossPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Park,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 29 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paul Hinckley Delano, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The “Sex differences in risk factors for age-related hearing loss” explores associated factors to hearing loss considering sex as qualitatively different phenomenon that can produce differences on risk factors. The study has a large sample size, and the main aim of the study is reasonable, and can be clinically useful. Despite its strengths, it has some caveats that should be considered by the authors.

1- Risk factors can’t be estimated from cross-sectional studies. This does not mean that this work is not a contribution to the field, but that authors should state that they are estimating associated factors, and discussing the potential bias derived from using this approach. It is critical to realize that odds ratio can vary substantially using cross-sectional vs longitudinal approaches.

2- Variable definitions are not supported in previous literature. Also, risk factors are categorical variables, but many of the predictors were entered as continues variables and no cut-off point was estimated. This is again aligned with an associated factor rationale rather than a risk factor.

3- The variables selected as potential risk factors should be properly addressed in the introduction. It is critical in this kind of study to present evidence supporting the link between the risk and the outcome to avoid spurious associations.

4- Similarly, variables such as menopause are included, without specifying how is entered (I assume is present, absent, however is not declared). This variable is an event, not an exposition. As such, is difficult to follow the rationale of considering it a risk factor. This rationale, as those in the other proposed variables, must be explicit and supported in previous literature.

5- It was not entirely clear the context at which patient arrive to consultation. Are they preventive, routine, or other? This may contribute to potential bias not discussed in the discussion.

6- Given the sex perspective of the study, a similar table to those reported in Table 1 should address descriptives by sex. For instance, many comments are given in the discussion of significant differences found in variables of Table 1, however, those differences are not divided by sex as logistic regressions.

7- The usual approach when estimating ORs in associated factors is to run simple logistic regression, not multivariate. The reason to do so is that risk factors are not independent, and this affects the estimation of ORs. For the case of this multivariate model, authors not only include a high number of predictors, which also negatively affects GLMs, but they also don’t check for collinearity. Authors should check variance inflation factor if this approach is used. Many variables are most likely highly correlated, and given the number of regressors, collinearity is most likely high.

8- Finally, considering the sample size, authors present high sensibility to detect minor but not relevant differences. This is not discussed. Only p-values are considered, without neglecting differences that may be considered as fairly irrelevant. Also, ORs estimated cross-sectionally, tend to present higher ORs. Considering these two elements, only a few results from the entire outcome would be promising for future longitudinal studies.

Reviewer #2: The article “Sex differences in risk factors for age-related hearing loss” is an interesting contribution to the knowledge of hearing loss in elderly adults, but some major modifications should be included before acceptance.

The main objective of the paper should be assessment of sex differences in risk factors for age related hearing loss (ARHL), since this is the tittle. Nevertheless, in the introduction there is only one phrase discussing this topic from previous publications. The authors should expand on this aspect so the reader can clearly understand the objective of the paper, or change the tittle.

The diagnosis of ARHL in the clinical setting usually relies on symmetric descending sensorineural hearing loss. Even though there is no clear age limit for the onset of this condition, most of the literature on the topic include adults over the age of 60 years old. In this paper, the age range spans between 40 and 94 years of age. Because of this, genetic-related adult-onset hearing loss could be included along with ARHL. My recommendation for the authors is to analyze the data again including only subjects older than 60 years of age. Also, there is no mention of asymmetric hearing loss. This is not typical of ARHL and these cases should be excluded.

There are some known risk factors for hearing loss in adults, such as head trauma or infectious deseases, that are not included. Please explain why.

Regarding hormonal exposure, there is no mention of menopausal hormonal replacement therapy. If there is no data this issue should be included in the discussion.

Table 1 should include intervals of confidence. Also I would recommend to change the % to make reference to the total according to hearing status and not to the total of subjects. For example, in sex distribution “Male” would be 51.1% in normal hearing and 64.1% in ARHL.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Mariela C. Torrente

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 6;19(3):e0298048. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298048.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


17 Nov 2023

Response to comment from the Reviewer #1:

Comment 1:

Risk factors can’t be estimated from cross-sectional studies. This does not mean that this work is not a contribution to the field, but that authors should state that they are estimating associated factors, and discussing the potential bias derived from using this approach. It is critical to realize that odds ratio can vary substantially using cross-sectional vs longitudinal approaches.

Response: We followed your advice and changed all of the “risk factor” to “associated factor” in the body, including the title.

Sex differences in associated factors for age-related hearing loss

Comment 2: Variable definitions are not supported in previous literature. Also, risk factors are categorical variables, but many of the predictors were entered as continues variables and no cut-off point was estimated. This is again aligned with an associated factor rationale rather than a risk factor.

Response: We appreciate your feedback. We have provided references from existing literature to define age-related hearing loss, asymmetric hearing loss and obesity. And to redefine certain variables, specifically sarcopenia and visceral adiposity, we have employed cutoff values after consulting relevant literature. The script now reads (please refer to line 110-123):

ARHL was defined as a 2 kHz threshold greater than 25 dB in the better ear and a 4 kHz threshold equal to or greater than the 2 kHz threshold in the same ear, which represents a modification of the criteria originally proposed by Sousa, C. S. et al[18]. Hearing loss that did not fall into either of these categories was excluded from the analysis. Asymmetric hearing loss was defined as a difference of 20 dB or more in the average hearing threshold between the two ears and was excluded from the analysis[19]. Weight was measured in kg, and height was measured in cm. Obesity, underweight, visceral adiposity, and sarcopenia were used as the body composition parameters. Obesity was defined as BMI ≥ 25, while underweight was defined as BMI < 18.5[20]. Visceral adiposity was evaluated via VFA, measured using an InBody 720. Subjects whose VFA ≥ 100 ㎠ were categorized as part of the visceral adiposity group, while those with VFA < 100 ㎠ were assigned to the normal group[21]. ASM was calculated as the sum of the lean skeletal muscle masses of the bilateral upper and lower limbs. Sarcopenia was evaluated using ASM% calculated as ASM × 100/weight. Sarcopenia was defined as having an ASM% below 29.0 in males and under 22.9 in females[22].

Comment 3: The variables selected as potential risk factors should be properly addressed in the introduction. It is critical in this kind of study to present evidence supporting the link between the risk and the outcome to avoid spurious associations.

Response: We appreciate your suggestions, and as per your recommendations, we have improved the introduction and included references to the associated factors discussed in the main text. The script now reads (please refer to line 58-76):

Chronic noise exposure and ototoxic drugs are well-known risk factors for hearing loss. Strong associations have been reported between a family history of hearing impairment and ARHL[8]. ARHL has been reported to be associated with Caucasian ethnicity[9] and lower socioeconomic status[10]. Associations between hearing loss and smoking[11], alcohol[12], and other chronic diseases, such as hypertension[13], diabetes[14], dyslipidemia[15], obesity[16], underweight[17], and sarcopenia[18] have been reported. A higher risk of hearing loss has been reported for short stature[19] and adiposity[20].

In addition, there are differences in hearing loss according to sex: the prevalence is lower in females than in males[21] and the age at onset of hearing loss is later[22]. Research indicates a sex-specific association between factors related to abdominal fat and hearing loss, with males showing a correlation with high-frequency hearing loss, and females exhibiting a correlation with low-frequency hearing loss[23]. Research on risk factors for hearing loss has also noted sex-based distinctions, where, for instance, high triglyceride levels and a history of smoking have been identified as risk factors among males, while a high body mass index (BMI) has been associated with females[24].

In females, reproductive factors have been associated with various chronic conditions. For instance, associations have been reported between increased parity and breast cancer[25], age at menarche and cardiovascular diseases[26], as well as the duration of estrogen exposure and cardiovascular diseases[27]. However, research on the association between obstetric history and ARHL is currently limited.

Comment 4: Similarly, variables such as menopause are included, without specifying how is entered (I assume is present, absent, however is not declared). This variable is an event, not an exposition. As such, is difficult to follow the rationale of considering it a risk factor. This rationale, as those in the other proposed variables, must be explicit and supported in previous literature.

Response: We agree with your suggestion and have excluded menopause as an explanatory variable in subsequent analyses.

Comment 5: It was not entirely clear the context at which patient arrive to consultation. Are they preventive, routine, or other? This may contribute to potential bias not discussed in the discussion.

Response: We appreciate your feedback. The participants voluntarily sought healthcare services with a focus on health management and preventive purposes. This explanation has been added, and the corresponding limitations have been incorporated into the main text. The script now reads (please refer to line 83-85):

A total of 22,332 individuals who underwent medical examinations, including hearing tests, were screened. The context of their visit was primarily oriented toward healthcare and preventive healthcare objectives.

And the script now reads (please refer to line 290-294):

Furthermore, the presence of unilateral conductive or unilateral sudden hearing loss did not impact the results, as the analysis focused on better ear hearing and excluded cases of asymmetric hearing loss. In addition, this study was conducted among individuals who voluntarily visited health check-up centers for the purposes of health management and prevention. As a result, the study may not be representative of the general population, and, consequently, there exists the potential for bias.

Comment 6: Given the sex perspective of the study, a similar table to those reported in Table 1 should address descriptives by sex. For instance, many comments are given in the discussion of significant differences found in variables of Table 1, however, those differences are not divided by sex as logistic regressions.

Response: We appreciate your feedback. Simple logistic regression analyses were performed for each sex and are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Univariate Logistic Regression Analysis of the Association between Age-Related Hearing Loss and Multiple Explanatory Variables, Stratified by Sex

Variables Male Female

OR 95% CI P-value OR 95% CI P-value

Age 1.209 1.175–1.245 <.001 1.218 1.187–1.252 <.001

Hypertension 1.119 0.881–1.422 .358 1.745 1.355–2.251 <.001

Diabetes 1.158 0.874–1.534 .307 1.639 1.178–2.266 .003

Dyslipidemia 1.016 0.800–1.289 .897 1.465 1.135–1.894 .003

BMI

Normal Reference Reference

Obesity 0.826 0.642–1.061 .135 1.524 1.168–1.987 .002

Underweight 3.557 1.710–8.119 .001 1.806 0.919–3.421 .076

Visceral adiposity 0.871 0.687–1.105 .255 1.241 0.959–1.604 .099

Sarcopenia 1.225 0.872–1.720 .240 2.009 1.419–2.829 <.001

Alcohol 0.684 0.476–0.980 .039 0.809 0.623–1.054 .115

Smoking

Never Reference Reference

Former 0.844 0.635–1.121 .240 0.864 0.312–2.065 .766

Current 1.241 0.894–1.726 .198 0.821 0.183–2.703 .758

Weight (kg) 0.973 0.960–0.985 <.001 0.984 0.968–0.999 .034

Height (cm) 0.956 0.935–0.976 <.001 0.946 0.925–0.968 <.001

History of childbirth 1.019 0.612–1.765 .943

Age at menarche (years) 1.251 1.166–1.344 <.001

Hormone exposure duration (years) 0.953 0.931–0.975 <.001

HRT 0.949 0.660–1.345 .773

Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index; HRT, hormone replacement therapy.

Comment 7: The usual approach when estimating ORs in associated factors is to run simple logistic regression, not multivariate. The reason to do so is that risk factors are not independent, and this affects the estimation of ORs. For the case of this multivariate model, authors not only include a high number of predictors, which also negatively affects GLMs, but they also don’t check for collinearity. Authors should check variance inflation factor if this approach is used. Many variables are most likely highly correlated, and given the number of regressors, collinearity is most likely high.

Response: We appreciate your feedback. It is not sufficient to estimate and interpret odds ratios from univariate analysis in the absence of controls. This is especially true when the relationship between an outcome and a risk factor is confounded by confounders that are not adequately controlled[1]. In such cases, the impact of the risk factor in question may be inaccurately assessed. This is why we conducted multiple logistic regression analyses in this study.

For example, smoking was reported as a significant risk factor for males in the existing literature[2]. However, in this study, it was not significant in univariate analysis. Nevertheless, after selecting variables and adjusting for age, sex, and BMI, smoking was found to have a statistically significant relationship with age-related hearing loss.

Furthermore, when we examined multicollinearity, the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values were no higher than 10 in both the full model, which included all potential variables, and the simplified model obtained through variable selection.

We apologize for not fully addressing these points in the original manuscript and have added them to the text as you pointed out. The script now reads (please refer to line 230-232):

Smoking, initially non-significant in univariate analysis, later proved significant in variable selection, highlighting the risk of excluding important variables when using univariate regression, consistent with prior research[36].

And the script now reads (please refer to line 264-269):

As exemplified in the case of age and sarcopenia mentioned above, when introducing multiple explanatory variables in multiple regression, it is imperative to consider multicollinearity. In this study, variance inflation factor (VIF) was computed for both the multiple regression model utilizing all variables and the simplified model obtained after variable selection. For all coefficients in both models, VIF values did not exceed 10.

Comment 8: Finally, considering the sample size, authors present high sensibility to detect minor but not relevant differences. This is not discussed. Only p-values are considered, without neglecting differences that may be considered as fairly irrelevant. Also, ORs estimated cross-sectionally, tend to present higher ORs. Considering these two elements, only a few results from the entire outcome would be promising for future longitudinal studies.

Response: We concur with your feedback. This study is cross-sectional in nature, which may have led to relatively elevated odds ratio values. Furthermore, due to the limited sample size in this study, some of the variables that were found significant here may only be significant in certain large-scale studies. Therefore, when interpreting the results of this study, it is essential to consider these limitations. The script now reads (please refer to line 279-284):

As this is a cross-sectional study, it is not possible to derive a causal relationship; therefore, further studies are required to confirm these findings. Additionally, the cross-sectional design of this study could have led to relatively elevated odds ratio values. Furthermore, owing to the limited sample size in this study, it's possible that only a subset of the variables considered significant here might remain significant in a larger study. Consequently, these limitations should be taken into account when interpreting the study's results.

Response to comment from the Reviewer #2:

Comment 1: The main objective of the paper should be assessment of sex differences in risk factors for age related hearing loss (ARHL), since this is the tittle. Nevertheless, in the introduction there is only one phrase discussing this topic from previous publications. The authors should expand on this aspect so the reader can clearly understand the objective of the paper, or change the tittle.

Response: We appreciate your suggestions and have enhanced the introduction, incorporating additional literature to address sex differences in risk factors for hearing loss as per your recommendations. The script now reads (please refer to line 65-76):

In addition, there are differences in hearing loss according to sex: the prevalence is lower in females than in males[21] and the age at onset of hearing loss is later[22]. Research indicates a sex-specific association between factors related to abdominal fat and hearing loss, with males showing a correlation with high-frequency hearing loss, and females exhibiting a correlation with low-frequency hearing loss[23]. Research on risk factors for hearing loss has also noted sex-based distinctions, where, for instance, high triglyceride levels and a history of smoking have been identified as risk factors among males, while a high body mass index (BMI) has been associated with females[24].

In females, reproductive factors have been associated with various chronic conditions. For instance, associations have been reported between increased parity and breast cancer[25], age at menarche and cardiovascular diseases[26], as well as the duration of estrogen exposure and cardiovascular diseases[27]. However, research on the association between obstetric history and ARHL is currently limited.

Comment 2: The diagnosis of ARHL in the clinical setting usually relies on symmetric descending sensorineural hearing loss. Even though there is no clear age limit for the onset of this condition, most of the literature on the topic include adults over the age of 60 years old. In this paper, the age range spans between 40 and 94 years of age. Because of this, genetic-related adult-onset hearing loss could be included along with ARHL. My recommendation for the authors is to analyze the data again including only subjects older than 60 years of age.

Response: We appreciate your feedback. We ran a new analysis restricting subjects to those aged 60 and older. The script now reads (please refer to line 86-88):

Among them, 2,349 participants were analyzed, excluding those younger than 60, those with missing data, those with a history of occupational noise exposure, those with hearing loss other than ARHL, those with asymmetric hearing loss, and those with central nervous system diseases (Fig 1).

Comment 3: Also, there is no mention of asymmetric hearing loss. This is not typical of ARHL and these cases should be excluded.

Response: We appreciate your feedback. In this study, we referred to the criterion for asymmetric hearing loss proposed by Kurioka et al., which is "AC threshold between the right and left ear (RL-gap) >= 20 dB."[3] An explanation of this criterion has also been included in the main text. The script now reads (please refer to line 86-88):

Among them, 2,349 participants were analyzed, excluding those younger than 60, those with missing data, those with a history of occupational noise exposure, those with hearing loss other than ARHL, those with asymmetric hearing loss, and those with central nervous system diseases (Fig 1).

And the script now reads (please refer to line 114-115):

Asymmetric hearing loss was defined as a difference of 20 dB or more in the average hearing threshold between the two ears and was excluded from the analysis[30].

Comment 4: There are some known risk factors for hearing loss in adults, such as head trauma or infectious diseases, that are not included. Please explain why.

Response: We appreciate your feedback. This study utilized information from questionnaire items conducted during health check-ups, and we could not investigate the past history of head injuries or infectious diseases because these were not included in the questionnaire items. This constitutes a limitation of our study, and we have added a mention of this limitation. The script now reads (please refer to line 284-286):

At the time of data collection, the associated factors related to hearing loss, such as history of ototoxic drug exposure, family history of hearing loss, history of head trauma and infectious diseases, were not assessed.

Comment 5: Regarding hormonal exposure, there is no mention of menopausal hormonal replacement therapy. If there is no data this issue should be included in the discussion.

Response: We appreciate your feedback. The use of hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal participants was investigated, and this has been included in the main text. However, the duration of hormone replacement therapy was not examined, which represents a limitation of the present study. The script now reads (please refer to line 273-278):

However, it's notable that while age at menarche was included as a variable, the duration of hormone exposure was excluded from the model. In our study, the duration of hormone exposure was defined as the timespan from menarche to menopause, irrespective of HRT utilization or its duration. In this study, we investigated the use of HRT, but we did not assess the duration of treatment, resulting in an incomplete analysis of its potential effects. Therefore, further comprehensive research is imperative to address this aspect comprehensively.

Comment 6: Table 1 should include intervals of confidence. Also I would recommend to change the % to make reference to the total according to hearing status and not to the total of subjects. For example, in sex distribution “Male” would be 51.1% in normal hearing and 64.1% in ARHL.

Response: We appreciate your feedback. To handle confidence intervals, we conducted univariate logistic regression analysis with stratification by sex, and the results have been summarized in Table 2. As you pointed out, we have made the necessary revisions to the notation in Table 1.

Table 1. Participants characteristics

Variables Total

n=2,349 Normal hearing

n=1,520 ARHL

n=829 P-value

Age 66.5±5.6 64.7±4.2 69.8±6.3 <.001

Sex <.001

Male 1,104 (47) 607 (40) 497 (60)

Female 1,245 (53) 913 (60) 332 (40)

Hypertension 1,198 (51) 723 (48) 475 (57) <.001

Diabetes 445 (19) 256 (17) 189 (23) <.001

Dyslipidemia 1,165 (50) 740 (49) 425 (51) .249

BMI <.001

Normal 1,470 (63) 975 (64) 495 (60)

Obesity 801 (34) 509 (34) 292 (35)

Underweight 78 (3.3) 36 (2.4) 42 (5.1)

Visceral adiposity 1001 (43) 633 (42) 368 (44) .214

Sarcopenia 317 (14) 176 (12) 141 (17) <.001

Alcohol 1,800 (77) 1,165 (77) 635 (77) 1.000

Smoking <.001

Never 1,511 (64) 1,049 (69) 462 (56)

Former 545 (23) 321 (21) 224 (27)

Current 293 (13) 150 (9.9) 143 (17)

Weight (kg) 61.6±10.4 61.5±10.2 61.7±10.6 .611

Height (cm) 160.6±9.1 160.3±9.2 161.2±8.8 .021

Abbreviations: ARHL, age-related hearing loss; BMI, body mass index

References

1. Sun GW, Shook TL, Kay GL. Inappropriate use of bivariable analysis to screen risk factors for use in multivariable analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(8):907-16.

2. Kumar A, Gulati R, Singhal S, Hasan A, Khan A. The effect of smoking on the hearing status-a hospital based study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7(2):210-4.

3. Kurioka T, Sano H, Furuki S, Yamashita T. Speech discrimination impairment of the worse-hearing ear in asymmetric hearing loss. Int J Audiol. 2021;60(1):54-9.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_letter_231025_mhp.docx

pone.0298048.s003.docx (47.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Paul Hinckley Delano

3 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-24622R1Sex differences in associated factors for age-related hearing lossPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Park,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Respond to reviewer 1 minor concerns.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 17 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paul Hinckley Delano, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The draft has improved substantially and most of my observations were solved. I only have minor comments that I left below.

From line 115 to 125 seems to be a change in format.

In line 142 an space is missing after "elimination"

Regarding my comment 8, maybe I was not clear. The problem is not that you have a limited sample size, quite the opposite. Statistics tend to produce more false positive results when having around sample sizes of 800 or above. Therefore, this study can easily detect significant results which are false positives or true positives with low effect sizes. The inclusion of Cis helps to better interpret the results. Therefore, I would consider that currently this is a solved issue.

I understand the use of BMI, but not so clear heigh. Even weight alone is easy to infer why is entered in the model. But heigh alone does not make much sense, and there is no mention to it in the introduction explaining a potential causal role in audition loss. I suggest the authors include information in the introduction regarding height or removing it.

Finally, please provide a reference for VIF cut off =10. That is a rather high cut off value (removing high should reduce VIF values anyway). Also, this information should be provided in methods rather than discussion.

Reviewer #3: The authors have conducted a cross-sectional study with a large number of individuals, in which they identified associated factors for age-related hearing loss and then separated them into men and women. The authors re-analysed these data, incorporating new tables and statistical models for correct interpretation and from that, new conclusions. They also took into account the limitations of the study itself (in relation to its conclusions) that, being a cross-sectional study, it is generally not possible to establish a causal relationship between the different factors. Finally, the authors responded to, incorporated and reanalysed in a good way what was requested by both reviewers throughout this paper.

From the above, I believe that this paper is fit for publication. For my part, I only have reservations about the conclusion which, in general, is very similar to the three previous lines before the discussion section (I suggest deleting lines 294 to 296 from the paper)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 6;19(3):e0298048. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298048.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


14 Jan 2024

Response to comment from the Reviewer #1:

Comment 1:

From line 115 to 125 seems to be a change in format.

In line 142 an space is missing after "elimination"

Response: We appreciate your feedback. The formatting issue you highlighted has been addressed. The script now reads (please refer to line 117-127):

Obesity was defined as BMI ≥ 25, while underweight was defined as BMI < 18.5. Visceral adiposity was evaluated via VFA, measured using an InBody 720. Subjects whose VFA ≥ 100 〖cm〗^2 were categorized as part of the visceral adiposity group, while those with VFA < 100 〖cm〗^2 were assigned to the normal group. ASM was calculated as the sum of the lean skeletal muscle masses of the bilateral upper and lower limbs. Sarcopenia was evaluated using ASM% calculated as ASM × 100/weight. Sarcopenia was defined as having an ASM% below 29.0 in males and under 22.9 in females. Hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg, or the use of antihypertensive medications. Diabetes was defined as fasting glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL, glycated hemoglobin level ≥ 6.5%, or use of antidiabetic medications. Dyslipidemia was defined as triglyceride level ≥ 150 mg/dL, HDL-C < 40 mg/dL in males and < 50 mg/dL in females, or the use of anti-dyslipidemia medications.

And we have also added the missing spaces as indicated. The script now reads (please refer to line 143):

Variable selection was performed using the augmented backward elimination (ABE) method,

Comment 2:

I understand the use of BMI, but not so clear heigh. Even weight alone is easy to infer why is entered in the model. But heigh alone does not make much sense, and there is no mention to it in the introduction explaining a potential causal role in audition loss. I suggest the authors include information in the introduction regarding height or removing it.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback. We acknowledge that our initial manuscript did not adequately address the relationship between height and hearing loss. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the Introduction section to include a reference to previous study that explore this relationship. Additionally, we have elaborated on the authors' hypothesis concerning this correlation. We believe these amendments will significantly strengthen our manuscript and thank you for your insightful suggestions. The script now reads (please refer to line 61-64):

Associations between hearing loss and smoking[11], alcohol[12], and other chronic diseases, such as hypertension[13], diabetes[14], dyslipidemia[15], obesity[16], underweight[17], sarcopenia[18] and adiposity[19] have been reported. Short stature has been reported to be associated with a higher risk of hearing loss, potentially due to fetal growth issues involving insulin-like growth factor 1, which affects cochlear development[20].

Comment 3:

Finally, please provide a reference for VIF cut off =10. That is a rather high cut off value (removing high should reduce VIF values anyway). Also, this information should be provided in methods rather than discussion.

Response: We are grateful for your insightful feedback. We concur with your observation that a threshold of 10 for the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) is excessively high to effectively rule out multicollinearity. Upon re-evaluating our models, including the variable 'height,' we found that the highest VIF value recorded is 4.6 for 'weight.' This value is well within the widely accepted threshold of 5 for VIF values, indicating a lower risk of multicollinearity.

Furthermore, we agree with your recommendation that this analysis should be included in the Methods section rather than the Discussion. We have revised our manuscript to reflect this change, ensuring that our approach to addressing multicollinearity is clearly outlined in the appropriate section. Thank you for guiding these improvements in our manuscript. The script now reads (please refer to line 147-152):

To assess multicollinearity in our regression models, we calculated the variance inflation factor (VIF). Initially, the VIF was computed for the multiple regression model incorporating all the considered variables. This was followed by computing the VIF for the simplified model, which was derived after the process of variable selection. The purpose of this analysis was to ensure that multicollinearity remains within acceptable limits, defined by having all coefficients in both models below the threshold value of 5.

Response to comment from the Reviewer #3:

I only have reservations about the conclusion which, in general, is very similar to the three previous lines before the discussion section (I suggest deleting lines 294 to 296 from the paper)

Response: We appreciate your feedback. We've revised the manuscript as you pointed out.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_letter_240110.docx

pone.0298048.s004.docx (25KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Paul Hinckley Delano

17 Jan 2024

Sex differences in associated factors for age-related hearing loss

PONE-D-23-24622R2

Dear Dr. Park,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Paul Hinckley Delano, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Paul Hinckley Delano

13 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-24622R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Park,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Paul Hinckley Delano

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Detailed multiple logistic regression analysis (male).

    (PDF)

    pone.0298048.s001.pdf (159.5KB, pdf)
    S2 Table. Detailed multiple logistic regression analysis (female).

    (PDF)

    pone.0298048.s002.pdf (153.6KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_letter_231025_mhp.docx

    pone.0298048.s003.docx (47.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_letter_240110.docx

    pone.0298048.s004.docx (25KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    This study investigated the association between various factors and hearing loss. In addition to age and sex, it encompassed sensitive information, including baseline medical conditions, physical measurements such as height and weight, and obstetric history. While no personally identifiable information was included, the combination of this diverse information could potentially lead to individual identification. Therefore, in this study, we have chosen not to make the complete dataset publicly available. But the datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available and can be provided upon a reasonable request and with the approval of the IRB. For further inquiries or data requests, please directly contact the IRB of Boramae Medical Center at brmirb@gmail.com or 82-2-870-1851.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES