Frailty Combined with Loneliness or Social Isolation: An Elevated Risk for Mortality in Later Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES Frailty, loneliness, and social isolation are all associated with adverse outcomes in older adults, but little is known about their combined impact on mortality. DESIGN Prospective cohort study. SETTING The Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. PARTICIPANTS Community‐dwelling older adults aged 65 and older (n = 1,427). MEASUREMENTS Frailty was measured with the frailty phenotype (Fried criteria). Loneliness was assessed with the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale. Social isolation was operationalized using information on partner status, social support, and network size. Two categorical variables were created, for each possible combination regarding frailty and loneliness (FL) and frailty and social isolation (FS), respectively. Mortality was monitored over a period of 22 years (1995–2017). Survival curves and Cox proportional hazard models were used to study the effects of the FL and FS combinations on mortality. Analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic factors, depression, chronic diseases, and smoking. RESULTS Frailty prevalence was 13%, and 5.9% of the sample were frail and lonely, and 6.2% frail and socially isolated. In fully adjusted models, older adults who were only frail had a higher risk of mortality compared with people without any of the conditions (hazard ratio [HR] range = 1.40–1.48; P < .01). However, the highest risk of mortality was observed in people with a combined presence of frailty and loneliness or social isolation (HR FL = 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.42–2.37; HR FS = 1.77; 95% CI = 1.36–2.30). Sensitivity analyses using a frailty index based on the deficit accumulation approach instead of the frailty phenotype showed similar results, confirming the robustness of our findings. CONCLUSION Frail older adults are at increased risk of mortality, but this risk is even higher for those who are also lonely or socially isolated. To optimize well‐being and health outcomes in physically frail older adults, targeted interventions focusing on both subjective and objective social vulnerability are needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".