← All metrics

Hearing loss and mortality risk

Each row is one study of death risk from hearing. The bright line is what that study found. The band around it is the range the data still supports — it fades where the evidence thins. Left of the centre line is lower risk.

what the study foundstill plausibleno change
any hearing loss vs normal hearing (self-report or audiometric, pooled)
Tan et al. 2022
13% higher
range 7–19% higher
self-reported hearing loss vs normal hearing (subgroup)
Jia et al. 2025
13% higher
range 6–20% higher
regular hearing aid use vs never (adults with hearing loss)
Choi et al. 2024
24% lower
range 5–40% lower

What it is

Whether you have any hearing loss vs normal — a self-report this calculator scores as binary Normal / Loss. It does not grade mild vs moderate, does not take an audiogram, and does not score hearing-aid use.

Why it matters for longevity

The engine uses Tan 2022 (26 studies, 1,213,756 people): ACM HR 1.13 (1.07–1.19) for any hearing loss vs normal. That pool mixes self-report and audiometry; Tan says those sizes were similar. Jia 2025 is larger (overall 1.21) but its self-report subgroup is 1.13 (1.06–1.20) — the same number as the engine. Audiometric Jia is 1.28; Contrera’s graded NHANES mild/mod+ is the severity shape this binary UI flattens. Tan: unknown whether hearing interventions mitigate excess mortality. Choi 2024 regular-aid ACM 0.76 is one observational cohort, not a trial. Engine not moved.

How to improve it

  • Get a baseline hearing screen
  • Wear hearing protection around loud noise
  • If you have loss, talk with a clinician about correction — this score does not assume aids cut death

Evidence, by endpoint

EndpointGradeFinding
All-cause mortality (any hearing loss vs normal)C
1.13x (Tan 2022)
Engine: any hearing loss vs normal, ACM HR 1.13 (1.07–1.19), 26 studies / 1.21 million. Mixed self-report and audiometry; those sizes were similar. Binary UI. Engine not moved.
All-cause mortality (self-reported hearing loss)C
Jia self-report is also 1.13
Jia 2025 overall ACM 1.21 (36 cohorts). Table 2 self-report subgroup is 1.13 (1.06–1.20) — the user’s answer mode. Audiometric subgroup is 1.28. Do not paste 1.21 onto this dropdown.
All-cause mortality (regular hearing-aid use)C
Aids vs death unproven (Tan 2022 / Choi 2024)
Tan: unknown whether hearing interventions mitigate excess mortality. Choi 2024 regular-aid ACM 0.76 is one observational cohort with residual confounding, not a trial. Marker, not a treatment effect.
All-cause mortality (hearing-loss severity category)C
Graded Severity, Mostly Not Significant (Contrera 2015)
NHANES cohort of 1,666 adults 70+: fully adjusted, mild hearing loss (25–<40 dB) carried ACM HR 1.21 (0.81–1.81, not significant) and moderate-or-worse (≥40 dB) carried HR 1.39 (0.97–2.01, not significant). Only the age-adjusted moderate-or-worse estimate reached significance, at HR 1.54 (1.08–2.18) — the severity gradient this calculator’s binary yes/no flattens.
All-cause mortality (hearing loss, age/sex-adjusted)C
Effect Vanishes After Adjustment (Karpa 2010)
Blue Mountains Hearing Study, 2,956 adults 49+ with hearing loss defined as PTA >25 dB: the age/sex-adjusted ACM HR was 1.39 (1.11–1.79), but this lost significance after full multivariable adjustment. A structural-equation pathway model found hearing loss linked to mortality mainly through walking disability, cognitive decline, and self-rated health (indirect HR 2.58, 1.64–4.05).
All-cause mortality (per 10 dB hearing loss)B
1.20 in Health ABC, Continuous to 1.14 Per 10 dB (Genther 2015)
Health ABC cohort of 1,958 adults 70+ with audiometric hearing loss (better-ear PTA >25 dB): ACM HR was 1.20 (1.03–1.41) after adjusting for demographics and cardiovascular risk factors. Modeled continuously, each 10 dB of hearing loss up to 35 dB carried HR 1.14 (1.00–1.29).

What argues against this

Contrera 2015 (competing slot; NHANES, n=1,666 adults 70+) is the strongest opposing evidence: fully adjusted, neither mild (HR 1.21, 0.81–1.81) nor moderate-or-worse (HR 1.39, 0.97–2.01) hearing loss reached statistical significance, and only the age-adjusted moderate-or-worse estimate did (HR 1.54, 1.08–2.18). That undercuts the certainty, though not the direction, of the pooled binary HR 1.13 this calculator uses — a graded, fully adjusted single cohort found the association could wash out.

Last reviewed 2 September 2026

Evidence

  1. Tan et al. (2022) — JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery
    Associations of Hearing Loss and Dual Sensory Loss With Mortality: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression of 26 Observational Studies With 1,213,756 Participants
    View source
  2. Jia et al. (2025) — PLOS ONE
    Hearing loss and its association with all-cause and cause-specific mortality: a meta-analysis of cohort studies
    View source
  3. Contrera et al. (2015) — JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery
    Association of Hearing Impairment and Mortality in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
    View source
  4. Choi et al. (2024) — The Lancet Healthy Longevity
    Association between hearing aid use and mortality in adults with hearing loss in the USA: a mortality follow-up study of a cross-sectional cohort
    View source
  5. Karpa et al. (2010) — Annals of Epidemiology
    Associations between hearing impairment and mortality risk in older persons: the Blue Mountains Hearing Study
    View source
  6. Genther et al. (2015) — The Journals of Gerontology, Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
    Association of hearing impairment and mortality in older adults
    View source
See how hearing fits your full score
See how it fits the 8-metric index in the calculator.
Open calculator

Educational content only — not medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Not a medical device; not FDA evaluated. Consult a qualified healthcare professional about your own health, and call emergency services for urgent symptoms. Full medical disclaimer →