Dyadic Associations Between Body Mass Index and the Development of Type 2 Diabetes in Romantic Couples: Results From the Health and Retirement Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Body mass index (BMI) is linked to Type 2 diabetes (T2D). Although romantic partners influence each other's health outcomes, it is unclear if partner's BMI is related to the development of T2D. PURPOSE: To test prospective, dyadic associations between BMI and the development of T2D in middle-aged and older adult couples over 8 years. METHODS: Data came from 950 couples in the Health and Retirement Study. Neither partner had diabetes at baseline (2006). The actor-partner interdependence model was used to examine dyadic associations between BMI at baseline and the development of T2D during the next 8 years. RESULTS: After adjusting for covariates, a significant actor effect was observed such that one's BMI at baseline was positively associated with one's own odds of developing T2D during follow-up (odds ratio [OR] = 1.08, p < .001). A significant partner effect was also observed such that the BMI of one's partner at baseline was positively associated with one's own odds of developing T2D during follow-up above and beyond one's own baseline BMI (OR = 1.04, p = .003). These associations were not moderated by sex. This pattern of results held when BMI was coded categorically (not overweight/obese; overweight; obese). CONCLUSIONS: Partner's BMI was prospectively associated with the likelihood of developing T2D. Future research should consider interpersonal risk factors for chronic health conditions, such as T2D. There is an opportunity to develop theoretical models that specify how and when partner characteristics are linked to physical morbidity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".