282Social isolation and incident coronary heart disease in two large UK prospective studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Social isolation is associated with CHD mortality but evidence of association with incident CHD is mixed. We prospectively examined this association in the Million Women Study (MWS) and UK Biobank (UKB). Methods 481,946 MWS and 456,612 UKB participants reported on social isolation (living alone, little contact with family/friends/groups). Excluding those reporting previous CHD or stroke, participants were followed for incident CHD using linkage to hospital admission and death records. Cox regression yielded relative risks (RR) by 3 levels of social isolation, adjusted for relevant confounders. Results During 7 years follow-up in the MWS and UKB, there were 42,402 first coronary heart disease events in total (of which 1,834 were fatal without an associated hospital admission). After adjustment, social isolation was not associated with hospital admission for first CHD events (combined RR for both studies: RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.98–1.04). However, the risk of fatal first CHD events without an associated hospital admission was substantially higher in the most isolated group than the least isolated group (1.86 [1.63–2.12]) This association with fatal first CHD events was driven by the association with living alone. Conclusions Social isolation was not associated with increased risk of first CHD hospital admissions but was associated with increased risk of death from CHD. Key messages Social isolation is likely not a risk factor for developing CHD, but people living alone may be at greater risk of dying from a coronary event than those not living alone.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".