MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200299025 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igab046.1231

Social Contact Prior to COVID-19 and Longitudinal Mental Health Trajectories During COVID-19 Among Adults Ages ≥55

2021· article· en· W4200299025 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel R Y Gan, John R. Best, Jessica Finlay

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessMental healthCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Social contactPsychologyCoping (psychology)Longitudinal studyDepression (economics)Social distanceClinical psychologyDemographyPsychiatryMedicineSocial psychologySociologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Social support protects mental health during a crisis. We examined whether prior contact with social organizations and friends/neighbors was associated with better trajectories of loneliness, depression and self-rated memory during the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted latent class analysis and regression analysis on longitudinal data from the COVID-19 Coping Study of US adults aged ≥55 from April-October 2020 (n=3105). Overall, prior contact with friends(B=-.075,p<.001), neighbors(B=-.048,p=.007), and social organizations(B=-.073,p<.001) predicted better mental health amid COVID-19. Three classes were identified: Class1 had the best outcomes, whereas Class3 had the worst outcomes and were most likely to live alone(B=.149,p<.001). For Class1, prior contact with social organizations(B=-.052,p=.044) predicted decreasing loneliness. For Class2, prior contact with friends(B=-.075,p<.001) predicted decreasing loneliness and better memory(B=-.130,p=.011). Conversely, prior contact with neighbors(B=-.165,p=.010) predicted worsening loneliness among Class3. Our findings pose new questions on the role of neighborhood networks to mitigate poor mental health outcomes among older adults during a crisis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→