Predictors of older adults’ objectively measured social isolation: A systematic review of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preventing social isolation is essential for promoting healthy aging. This study aims to 1) systematically review and synthesize the predictors of objectively measured social isolation from observational studies that have treated isolation as an outcome in community-dwelling older adults, and 2) overview previous studies in this area and reveal an agenda to develop future research. METHODS: Peer-reviewed primary studies published in English or Japanese were identified from PubMed, ScienceDirect, PsycINFO, Igaku-Chuo-Zasshi, and CiNii. We followed the PRISMA statement. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Of the 1,161 studies identified, 10 were included in the review. Most studies were cross-sectional and published in the past 20 years. The risk of bias score ranged from 3 to 6 for the individual studies, indicating a moderate to high risk. The assessment measures for social isolation and proportion of isolated subjects varied greatly across studies. Findings on the predictors of social isolation from each study were clustered into four categories: socio-demographic factors, physical health factors, psychological and cognitive factors, and social and cultural factors. CONCLUSIONS: It was difficult to confirm these predictors conclusively because of the cross-sectional study design and a huge variety of assessment tools for social isolation. This result suggests the need to build consensus on the appropriate scales and standard cut-off points for assessing social isolation. Furthermore, longitudinal studies are urgently required. When considering predictors of social isolation, it is also essential to consider the regional and ethnic background of the samples studied.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".