EVERYDAY MODERATORS AND HEALTH CORRELATES OF PHYSIOLOGICAL SYNCHRONY IN OLDER COUPLES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Couples not only share their everyday lives but there is also evidence that they are physiologically ‘in sync’. This study aims to link everyday salivary cortisol synchrony to partner closeness and health biomarkers. We used multilevel modelling to analyze data from 85 older couples (aged 60–87 years) who completed questionnaires and provided saliva samples (cortisol) five times daily for 7 days. Cortisol levels were significantly correlated among partners. Higher daily perceptions of closeness with the partner were linked with increased cortisol synchrony in men but not women. Higher cortisol synchrony was associated with higher total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and steeper wake-evening cortisol slopes. Synchrony may be important for perspective-taking and empathy but could also put the partner at risk if physiological stress responses are frequently transmitted. More research is needed to examine the direction of transmission, and to analyse precursors and long-term consequences of physiological synchrony in couples.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".