The Relationship Between Successful Aging and All-Cause Mortality Risk in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This meta-analysis aimed to explore the effect of successful aging (SA) on all-cause mortality risk in older people to provide a theoretical basis for promoting SA. Methods PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CNKI, and WanFang databases (inception to March 4, 2021) were searched for cohort studies to evaluate the relationship between SA and mortality in older people. A random-effects model was used to synthesis hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. All statistical analyses were conducted in STATA 16.0. Results In total, 21,158 older adults from 10 studies were included in the current systematic review and meta-analysis. The SA group tended to have 50% lower risk of all-cause mortality than the non-SA group (pooled hazard ratio = 0.50, 95% confidence intervals: 0.35–0.65, P < 0.001; I 2 = 58.3%). The risk of all-cause mortality in older people increased by 17% for each unit increment in the healthy aging index (HAI) ( I 2 = 0%, P = 0.964). Compared with the reference group (HAI 0-2), older people with HAI 3-4, HAI 5-6, and HAI 7-10 had 1.31-fold, 1.73-fold, and 2.58-fold greater risk of all-cause mortality, respectively. Subgroup analysis did not reveal possible sources of heterogeneity. Conclusions This meta-analysis suggests that older adults with SA reduced the risk of all-cause mortality by 50%. However, few interventional studies have been conducted. Therefore, healthcare providers must be aware of the relationship between SA and mortality risk and actively develop intervention methods for helping old people achieve SA.
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 | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".