Prolonged social isolation and cognitive function in older adults: lack of informal social contact versus formal social activity as the source of social isolation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives This study investigates the cognitive function trajectories associated with prolonged social isolation, while distinguishing between a lack of informal social contact and a lack of formal social activity as the source of social isolation.Methods Data from the Korean Longitudinal Study of Ageing spanning 12 years between 2006 and 2018 were analyzed. A lack of frequent informal social contact or formal social activity was used to assess social isolation, and cognitive function was measured by Korean Mini-Mental State Examination. Fixed effects regression models were used to account for unobserved individual-level confounders.Results A prolonged absence of frequent informal social contact was linked to a decline in cognitive function up to the three waves of exposure (b = −2.135), but cognitive function has not declined further since then. A persistent lack of formal social activity was associated with a decline in cognitive function up to the fifth and subsequent waves of exposure (b = −3.073). No gender differences were observed in these relationships.Conclusion Prolonged social isolation, particularly a lack of formal social activity, can pose a significant threat to the cognitive health of older adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".