Social isolation and loneliness: Prospective associations with functional status in older adults.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present analysis aimed to examine the associations of isolation and loneliness, individually as well as simultaneously, with 2 measures of functional status (gait speed and difficulties in activities of daily living) in older adults over a 6-year period using data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, and to assess if these associations differ by SES. METHOD: Loneliness was measured using the short form of the Revised UCLA scale, and an index of social isolation was computed incorporating marital status; frequency of contact with friends, family, and children; and participation in social activities. Measures of functional status were assessed identically at baseline and 6 years later for 3070 participants (mean age 69 years). Wealth was used as an indicator of SES. RESULTS: In fully and mutually adjusted models, social isolation and loneliness were found to be associated with a decrease in gait speed at follow-up, with stronger effects among more disadvantaged individuals. Loneliness was associated with an increase in difficulties with activities of daily living. CONCLUSIONS: Isolation and loneliness were adversely associated with different aspects of functional status. Interventions to reduce isolation and loneliness may be particularly beneficial for individuals in disadvantaged groups. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".