MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2986241049 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igz038.1957

THE EXTREME FACE OF SOCIAL ISOLATION: A COHORT STUDY OF UNBEFRIENDED INDIVIDUALS IN LONG-TERM CARE

2019· article· en· W2986241049 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephanie Chamberlain, Wendy Duggleby, Pamela B. Teaster, Janet Fast, Carole A. Estabrooks

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinimum Data SetMedicineCohortMental healthSocial isolationLogistic regressionDepression (economics)DemographyCohort studyPsychiatryDescriptive statisticsRetrospective cohort studyGerontologyNursing homesNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Even though social isolation is a significant predictor of poor health and mortality in older adults, very little is known about social isolation in long-term care (LTC) settings. The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence, demographic characteristics, health outcomes, and disease diagnoses of residents without family contact in Alberta LTC homes. Using data collected between April 2008 and March 2018, we conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Resident Assessment Instrument, Minimum Data Set, (RAI-MDS 2.0) data from 34 LTC facilities in Alberta. We identified individuals who had no contact with family or friends. Using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression, we compared the characteristics, disease diagnoses, and functional status of individuals who had no contact with family and individuals who did have contact with family. We identified a cohort of 25,330 individuals, of whom 945 had no contact with family or friends. Different from residents who had family, the cohort with no contact was younger (81.47 years, SD=11.79), and had a longer length of stay (2.71 years, SD=3.63). For residents who had contact with family, residents with no contact had a greater number of mental health diagnoses, including depression (OR: 1.21, [95% CI: 1.06-1.39]), bipolar disorder (OR: 1.80, [95% CI: 1.22-2.68]), and schizophrenia (OR: 3.9, [95% CI: 2.96-5.14]). Interpretation: Residents without family contact had a number of unique care concerns, including mental health issues and poor health outcomes. These findings have implications for the training of staff and LTC services available to these vulnerable residents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→