Does life satisfaction predict five-year mortality in community-living older adults?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Depression and depressive symptoms predict death, but it is less clear if more general measures of life satisfaction (LS) predict death. Our objectives were to determine: (1) if LS predicts mortality over a five-year period in community-living older adults; and (2) which aspects of LS predict death. METHOD: 1751 adults over the age of 65 who were living in the community were sampled from a representative population sampling frame in 1991/1992 and followed five years later. Age, gender, and education were self-reported. An index of multimorbidity and the Older American Resource Survey measured health and functional status, and the Terrible-Delightful Scale assessed overall LS as well as satisfaction with: health, finances, family, friends, housing, recreation, self-esteem, religion, and transportation. Cox proportional hazards models examined the influence of LS on time to death. RESULTS: 417 participants died during the five-year study period. Overall LS and all aspects of LS except finances, religion, and self-esteem predicted death in unadjusted analyses. In fully adjusted analyses, LS with health, housing, and recreation predicted death. Other aspects of LS did not predict death after accounting for functional status and multimorbidity. CONCLUSION: LS predicted death, but certain aspects of LS are more strongly associated with death. The effect of LS is complex and may be mediated or confounded by health and functional status. It is important to consider different domains of LS when considering the impact of this important emotional indicator on mortality among older adults.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".