Functional social support and cognitive function in middle- and older-aged adults: a systematic review of cross-sectional and cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intact cognitive function is crucial for healthy aging. Functional social support is thought to protect against cognitive decline. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the association between functional social support and cognitive function in middle- and older-aged adults. METHODS: Articles were obtained from PubMed, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, CINAHL, and Scopus. Eligible articles considered any form of functional social support and cognitive outcome. We narratively synthesized extracted data by following the Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) guidelines and assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: Eighty-five articles with mostly low risk-of-bias were included in the review. In general, functional social support-particularly overall and emotional support-was associated with higher cognitive function in middle- and older-aged adults. However, these associations were not all statistically significant. Substantial heterogeneity existed in the types of exposures and outcomes evaluated in the articles, as well as in the specific tools used to measure exposures and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our review highlights the role of functional social support in the preservation of healthy cognition in aging populations. This finding underscores the importance of maintaining substantive social connections in middle and later life. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Rutter EC, Tyas SL, Maxwell CJ, Law J, O'Connell ME, Konnert CA, Oremus M. Association between functional social support and cognitive function in middle-aged and older adults: a protocol for a systematic review. BMJ Open;10(4):e037301. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037301.
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 | 0.013 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".