Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Benefits Beyond Auditory Rehabilitation Research conducted by Frank Lin and colleagues found that individuals with untreated mild, moderate, and severe hearing loss had, respectively, a twofold, threefold, and fivefold increased risk of dementia compared with individuals with normal hearing. 4 Research suggests that early auditory rehabilitation is important for people of all ages, including older adults, as it can provide benefits and improvements beyond hearing ability such as cognitive function and mitigation of depression. Lin et al. studied the impact of rehabilitation with hearing aids and the association with cognitive benefit in older adults. 5–7 Based on this research, older adults are at risk for a threefold to fivefold increased risk of dementia associated with their hearing loss—a risk that may also be mitigated via intervention with a cochlear implant. The study concluded that CI should be routinely discussed as having a possible positive effect on cognitive function in older adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss who are not sufficiently helped with hearing aids. Making CI available to older adults who can benefit from improved access to spoken language and environmental sounds is recognized as an opportunity to improve overall quality of life. The study found that age did not impact quality-of-life outcomes demonstrating that data from other studies on CI patients from younger demographics could be applied to Medicare beneficiaries. 10 STUDY FINDINGS LEADING TO THE NCD REVISION The final study findings published in the JAMA Otolaryngology--Head & Neck Surgery paper demonstrated important patient improvement in outcomes following CI. All the changes in speech perception performance were statistically significant (see Figure 1). AzBio indicates AzBio Sentence Test; CNC, Consonant Nucleus Consonant Monosyllabic Word Test; and CUNY, City University of New York sentence test. 11 Maybe more noteworthy, changes (improvements) in speech perception were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful positive changes in hearing-related quality-of-life metrics as assessed by the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and Health Utilities Index Mark-3 (HUI-3). Overall, the results of the study clearly demonstrated that current multichannel cochlear implant systems provide meaningful improvements in communication for adult Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older, with qualifying AZBio sentence recognition scores bet

Key findings

Why it matters

The article reports that untreated hearing loss is linked to a higher risk of dementia, and that cochlear implants should be discussed as possibly helping cognitive function in older adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss. It does not show that cochlear implants prevent or cure Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 28/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 1 of 7; Citations per year 0 of 5; Impact for its field and year 1 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 0 of 4; Senior author's track record 3 of 4; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration 0 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 27 of the 97 points it could be judged on, which is 28 of 100. Total 28 of 100.27 of the 97 points we could judge = 28 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on institution's track record, so that was left out: it earned 27 of the 97 points we could judge it on, which is 28 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Hearing Journal)
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 The Hearing Journal: journal h-index 33 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 3 / 5 2022 — within 6 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 1 / 7 Cited 2 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 0 / 5 0.3 citations a year over 6 year(s) since 2022
Impact for its field and year 1 / 6 Cited 0.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited 0 / 4 Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 3 / 4 Last-listed author Craig A. Buchman: h-index 59 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration 0 / 3 OpenAlex lists 0 institution(s) in 0 countries — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 27 / 97 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 97 points we could judge it on is 28 out of 100.
Total 28 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

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.

APA 7th

Sorkin, D. L., & Buchman, C. A. (2022). Cochlear Implants Now More Accessible to Older Adults. The Hearing Journal. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hj.0000911292.81161.cb

Vancouver

Sorkin DL, Buchman CA. Cochlear Implants Now More Accessible to Older Adults. The Hearing Journal. 2022. doi:10.1097/01.hj.0000911292.81161.cb.

BibTeX

@article{sorkin2022-a9d2ef8f,
  author  = {Sorkin, Donna L. and Buchman, Craig A.},
  title   = {{Cochlear Implants Now More Accessible to Older Adults}},
  journal = {The Hearing Journal},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.1097/01.hj.0000911292.81161.cb},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hj.0000911292.81161.cb}
}

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Related studies in Risk factors

Also tagged “cognitive-function”

1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-function”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,118 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →