Associations between social connections, their interactions, and obesity differ by gender: A population-based, cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To quantify the link between four different types of social ties and objective measures of abdominal and general obesity, and to explore their inter-relationships in association with obesity using a gender-sensitive analysis. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 28,238 adults (45-85 years) from the baseline Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging Comprehensive cohort (2012-15). Social ties (marital status, living arrangement, social network size, and social participation) and measured anthropometry (body mass index, waist circumference) were analyzed using linear and logistic regression models with interaction terms conditioned on known confounders. RESULTS: We found that being single, widowed or divorced/separated was associated with worse anthropometric outcomes in women, including higher odds of both abdominal and general obesity, and that associations were enhanced when combined with limited social participation, lone-living and greater social network size. Few clear associations were observed in men. Limited social participation (no social activities at least once/month) among women was associated with larger waist circumference (+4.19 cm [95% CI: 1.86, 6.52]) and higher odds of both abdominal and general obesity. By contrast, associations appeared to be reversed in men: lone-living and smaller social networks were associated with lower odds of obesity, compared to co-living and larger social networks. We also found that more regular social participation can potentially mitigate the adverse associations between non-partnership (single, divorced) and obesity in women. Overall, the combined influence of two types of social tie deficits on excess weight measures was more pronounced in women than men. CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight the importance of considering how the role of social ties for obesity prevention may differ for women and men. Frequent social participation and number of social contacts may matter for assessing whether divorced, single or lone-living older women are at risk of obesity while living arrangement and social contacts may matter for obesity in men.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".