The Association between Social Support Sources and Cognitive Function among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A One-Year Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is evidence that social relationships may modify cognitive decline in older people. We examined the prospective association between social support and cognitive function among community-dwelling older people. Japanese adults recruited at health checkups in suburban towns were surveyed at baseline and one-year follow-up. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Japanese version (MoCA-J). Social support from coresiding family, non-coresiding family, and neighbors/friends was assessed using self-administered questionnaires. Multivariable linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the effects of social support on MoCA-J scores at follow-up. Data were analyzed from 121 older people (mean age (standard deviation): 73.86 (4.95) years). There was a positive association between social support exchanges with neighbors and friends and MoCA-J scores at follow-up after covariate adjustment (unstandardized β = 1.23, p = 0.006). Social support exchanges with coresiding family and non-coresiding family and relatives were not associated with MoCA-J scores at follow-up (coresiding family: Unstandardized β = 0.28, p = 0.813, non-coresiding family and relatives: Unstandardized β = 0.51, p = 0.238). The provision of emotional support to neighbors and friends had the largest effect on MoCA-J scores. Our findings suggest that social support exchanges with neighbors and friends are protective against cognitive decline.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".