THE ROLE OF PERCEIVED SOCIAL SUPPORT AND PRUDENT DIET INTAKE ON ALLOSTATIC LOAD AMONG OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Allostatic load (AL), an index of multisystem physiological dysregulation due to chronic stress, has been identified as a predictor of poor health outcomes in late life. Research suggests that perceived social support (PSS) improves health outcomes by buffering the negative effects of stress on wellbeing and increasing health promoting behaviours including consumption of a healthy prudent diet (i.e., fruits, vegetables, lean meats, nuts, and seeds). Research to date has independently demonstrated that higher PSS and prudent diet intake have an effect on AL. A paucity of research, however, has examined how dietary consumption and PSS interact to effect AL in older adults. The objective of this study was to examine the interaction between PSS and prudent diet pattern on AL in 164 non-demented, community-dwelling older adults (Mage= 68.5(.52), 64% female). PSS and diet intake were measured using the Perceived Social Support Scale and the EPIC-Norfolk Food Frequency Questionnaire, respectively. AL was composed of 16 biomarkers stemming from neuroendocrine, metabolic, inflammatory, and cardiovascular systems, stratified by sex. Controlling for age and usual daily energy intake, higher prudent diet consumption (B=-2.04, p=.001), but not PSS, was associated with lower AL. Moderation analysis revealed that higher prudent diet intake was associated with lower AL only for those with low PSS (B=-.83, p=.0006) and mean level of PSS (B=-.43, p=.02). These findings suggest that chronic biological stress may be mitigated by consuming a healthy diet specifically for older adults with lower social support and may further inform intervention strategies to promote healthy aging.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".