Depression, Isolation, Social Support, and Cardiovascular Disease in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research evidence related specifically to psychosocial issues in older adults with cardiovascular disease remains sparse; however, widespread recognition of the impact of the changing population demographic is spurring new research in this important area. National guidelines for cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention in several countries include recommendations related to psychosocial issues; authors are beginning to address the older cardiac patient in their recommendations. The purpose of this article is to highlight some key psychosocial factors that have been independently associated with coronary heart disease but to do so with a focus on the older adult in the secondary prevention setting. The selected psychosocial factors are social support, social isolation, and depression. Although evidence supports a relationship between psychosocial factors and coronary heart disease, the issue addressed in this article is whether such relationships hold true in the older adult and whether rehabilitation and secondary prevention interventions are targeted to address these factors. As much as possible, current recommendations (related to psychosocial issues) from worldwide Clinical Practice Guidelines are highlighted. Finally, any examination of psychosocial factors and coronary heart disease must consider the possibility of sex and/or gender differences. Therefore, a commentary on reported differences between men and women with respect to social support, social isolation, and depression is included.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".