Lack of Association of Elder Mistreatment With Mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior research is limited and inconsistent on the degree to which elder mistreatment (EM) is associated with mortality. This study uses data from a 10-year, prospective, population-based study of EM to determine the adjusted effects of EM on older adult mortality, after controlling for other health and socioeconomic covariates. METHODS: The New York State Elder Mistreatment Prevalence Study conducted a random-sample telephone survey of older adults (n = 4 156) in 2009 (Wave 1). The current study employs EM and covariate data from Wave 1 and data on mortality status through Wave 2 (2019). EM was operationalized both as experiencing EM and as severity of EM. The survey measured overall EM and separate subtypes (emotional, physical, and financial abuse, and neglect). RESULTS: The hypothesis was not supported that abused and neglected older people would have higher rates of death over the study. Individuals who were victims of EM were no more likely to die over the following 10 years, compared with those who were not mistreated, after controlling for covariates. Furthermore, the severity of EM, as measured by the frequency of mistreatment behaviors, also was not associated with mortality risk. CONCLUSIONS: The finding that self-reported EM did not raise the risk of earlier death in this sample is encouraging. Future research should work to identify factors that may moderate the relationship between EM and mortality, such as social support/isolation, quality of family relationships, or involvement with formal support service systems.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".