Home › Research › Risk factors
Chronic inflammation - inflammaging - in the ageing cochlea: A novel target for future presbycusis therapy
Watson N, Ding B, Zhu X, Frisina RD.. Ageing research reviews, 2017-10-07
Topic: Inflammation, microglia and astrocytes
Chronic, low-grade inflammation, or inflammaging, is a crucial contributor to various age-related pathologies and natural processes in aging tissue, including the nervous system. Over the past two decades, much effort has been done to understand the mechanisms of inflammaging in disease models such as type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and others. However, despite being the most prevalent neurodegenerative disorder, the number one communication disorder, and one of the top three chronic medical conditions of our aged population; little research has been conducted on the potential role of inflammation in age-related hearing loss (ARHL). Recently, it has been suggested that there is an inflammatory presence in the cochlea, perhaps involving diffusion processes of the blood-brain barrier as it relates to the inner ear. Recent research has found correlations between hearing loss and markers such as C-reactive protein, IL-6, and TNF-α indicating inflammatory status in human case-cohort studies. However, there have been very few reports of in vivo research investigating the role of chronic inflammation's in hearing loss in the aging cochlea. Future research directed at better understanding the mechanisms of inflammation in the cochlea as well as the natural changes acquired with aging may provide a better understanding of how this process can accelerate presbycusis. Animal model experimentation and pre-clinical studies designed to recognize and characterize cochlear inflammatory mechanisms may suggest novel treatment strategies for preventing or treating ARHL. In this review, we seek to summarize key research in chronic inflammation, discuss its implications for possible roles in ARHL, and finally suggest directions for future investigations.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Watson, N., Ding, B., Zhu, X., & Frisina, R. D. (2017). Chronic inflammation - inflammaging - in the ageing cochlea: A novel target for future presbycusis therapy. Ageing research reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2017.10.002
Vancouver
Watson N, Ding B, Zhu X, Frisina RD. Chronic inflammation - inflammaging - in the ageing cochlea: A novel target for future presbycusis therapy. Ageing research reviews. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2017.10.002. PMID: 29017893.
BibTeX
@article{watson2017-29017893,
author = {Watson, N. and Ding, B. and Zhu, X. and Frisina, R. D.},
title = {{Chronic inflammation - inflammaging - in the ageing cochlea: A novel target for future presbycusis therapy}},
journal = {Ageing research reviews},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1016/j.arr.2017.10.002},
pmid = {29017893},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2017.10.002}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Recently, it has been suggested that there is an inflammatory presence in the cochlea, perhaps involving diffusion processes of the blood-brain barrier as it relates to the inner ear.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Ageing research reviews) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29017893) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 31 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100. |
| Total | 53 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “hearing”
118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “hearing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 118 tagged studies.