The Association Between Social Isolation and<i>DSM-IV</i>Mood, Anxiety, and Substance Use Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to document the prevalence of social isolation from close friends and religious group members and to test the association of having infrequently contacted close friends and members of religious groups with the current DSM-IV mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders. METHOD: We conducted a secondary data analysis based on a cross-sectional, population-based study conducted in 2004-2005 that consists of a nationally representative sample of 34,653 American community-dwelling adults aged 18 years and older. Mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders were assessed using the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-DSM-IV version. Due to missing values for social network characteristics, we focused on 33,368 subjects in this study. RESULTS: We found that many Americans lacked frequently contacted close friends (10.1%; 95% CI, 9.6%-10.6%) or religious group members (58.7%; 95% CI, 57.5%-59.9%) in their social network. After adjusting for sociodemographic variables, lifetime diagnosis of the disorder in question, and social isolation in terms of 10 other social ties, we found that the absence of close friends was associated (P < .01) with an increased risk of major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, social phobia, and generalized anxiety disorder; the absence of frequently contacted religious group members in a network was positively related (P < .01) to alcohol abuse and dependence, drug abuse, and nicotine dependence. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that social isolation is common in the United States and is associated with a higher risk of mental health problems. Results provide valuable information for prevention and treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".