MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4205306717 · doi:10.1002/alz.050538

Social support factors and cognitive outcomes in mid‐life

2021· article· en· W4205306717 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Margaret Bruck, Feng Xia, Christina S. Dintica, Stephen Sidney, Kristine Yaffe

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessSocial supportPsychologyDigit symbol substitution testCognitionVerbal fluency testStroop effectEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineNeuropsychologyPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background A growing body of evidence suggests that social support is associated with cognitive outcomes including dementia in late‐life. Yet few studies have examined the association between social support and cognition in mid‐life, a critical time of transition to aging. Furthermore, little is known about the effects of other aspects of social function such as emotional support, social strain and loneliness on cognition. Our goal was to investigate the association between several social support factors and cognitive performance in mid‐life. Method We studied 2,732 Black and White adults from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study who completed a social support questionnaire at baseline (CARDIA Year 20, mean age 45.2 years, 57% female, 45% Black) which assessed aspects of emotional support, social strain, and loneliness. At the 10‐year follow‐up, cognitive performance was evaluated with a battery of five tests: Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), Stroop Test, Verbal Fluency (category and letter fluency), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) and standardized to z‐scores. We used linear regression to determine the association between emotional support, social strain, and loneliness, categorized as tertiles (comparing high to low), with mid‐life cognition. Result In unadjusted models, all three social support factors were associated with cognition 10 years later. After adjusting for age, sex, race, education, marital status, income, and depression, participants reporting higher levels of emotional support performed better on all cognitive tests (DSST High vs. Low (z‐score)=0.13 [95%CI 0.03, 0.23]; RAVLT=0.17 [95%CI 0.07, 0.27]; reverse Stroop=0.15 [95%CI 0.05, 0.26]; Verbal Fluency=0.12 [95%CI 0.01, 0.23]; MOCA=0.19 [95%CI 0.09, 0.28]). Less social strain was associated with higher scores on most tests (DSST Low vs. High=0.16 [95%CI 0.06, 0.26]; RAVLT=0.11 [95%CI 0.01, 0.21]; and MOCA=0.13 [95%CI 0.04, 0.23]). Loneliness was not associated with mid‐life cognition. Conclusion Greater level of social support, particularly emotional support, was associated with better mid‐life cognitive outcomes 10 years later. To better inform risk and prevention efforts, more research should be conducted to investigate the associations between various dimensions of social support and cognitive outcomes across the life course.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→