The Longevity Effects of Religious and Nonreligious Participation: A Meta‐Analysis and Meta‐Regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars have long argued that the reduced mortality risk associated with frequent participation in religious services derives from two sources: social participation and religious belief efficacy. In contrast, the reduced mortality risk associated with participation in nonreligious groups is thought to derive solely from the social participation component. This study tests the religious efficacy hypothesis by comparing the effects of religious participation with nonreligious participation using meta‐analyses of 312 mortality risk estimates from 74 publications (providing data on more than 300,000 persons). We found no significant difference between the mean hazard ratio (HR) for low religious participation (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24–1.41) and the mean HR for low nonreligious participation (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.17–1.33). These findings suggest that the positive health effects of religious participation may largely be attributed to the social participation component, rather than to the religious component of the act.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".