Chronic Loneliness, Gender, and Trajectories of Change in Hand Grip Strength in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examined whether exposure to chronic loneliness is associated with a persistent decline in hand grip strength among community-dwelling older adults in Korea, and this association varies by gender. METHODS: This study analyzed data from 2,570 adults aged 65 or older collected over the course of 7 waves (12 years) of the Korean Longitudinal Study of Ageing from 2006 to 2018 (1,403 women and 1,167 men). Exposure to chronic loneliness was assessed by the experience of loneliness over a period of years, and hand grip strength was measured by an objective diagnostic tool. Gender-stratified fixed effects models were estimated to determine whether the association between chronic loneliness and hand grip strength differs by gender while accounting for time-invariant individual heterogeneity. RESULTS: Chronic loneliness was associated with a persistent decline in hand grip strength in older adults over an extended period of time. Gender-specific analyses revealed that only men continued to experience a decline in hand grip strength up to the fifth and subsequent waves of exposure (b = -1.889). By contrast, for older women, a significant decrease in hand grip strength was observed only in the second wave of exposure (b = -0.690). These gendered trajectories were statistically significant. DISCUSSION: Chronic loneliness impairs the physical health of older adults in the long run. These physical health consequences of chronic loneliness were more pronounced among older men than older women. The study's findings inform the development of interventions that mitigate the adverse health consequences of chronic loneliness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".