Examining the association between functional social support, marital status, and memory: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional social support (FSS) has been shown to be positively associated with better cognitive function, especially memory, in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. To better understand this complex association, researchers should consider the impact of additional factors that affect both FSS and memory. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to examine whether one such factor, marital status or related variables (e.g., FSS from spouses compared to FSS from relatives or friends), affects (e.g., confounds or modifies) the association between FSS and memory in middle-aged and older adults. METHODS: We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus from database inception to June 2022. Eligible articles examined the association between FSS and memory, and included marital status or related variables in the analysis. Data were synthesized narratively and reported in accordance with the Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines; risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: Four articles were included in the narrative synthesis. All four articles had a low risk of bias. Overall findings suggested some positive associations between FSS from a spouse/partner and memory; however, effect sizes were small and similar to other sources of support, including children, relatives, and friends. CONCLUSIONS: Our review is the first attempt to synthesize the literature on this topic. Despite theoretical support for examining the impact of marital status or related variables on the association between FSS and memory, published studies explored this issue secondarily to other research questions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".