Functional social isolation mediates the association between depression and executive function in older women: findings from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging Comprehensive cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depression and social isolation increase risk for executive function declines and are among the top five modifiable risk factors for dementia. However, the interrelationships between depression, social isolation and executive function are not well established. Further evidence is needed to inform strategies to promote executive function and independence in older age. We examined whether social isolation mediated the association between depression and executive function in community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults and whether this association was modified by age and sex. Adults aged 45 to 85 years from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) Comprehensive cohort were followed over three years (complete case analysis, n = 14,133). Baseline depressive symptoms, a history of clinical depression, and functional social isolation (perceived lack of social support) were self-reported. Executive function at follow-up was a composite measure of five cognitive tests. Conditional process analysis assessed the mediating effects of functional social isolation across age group and sex, adjusted for sociodemographic and health covariates. Functional social isolation significantly mediated the association of depressive symptoms (proportion mediated [PM] = 8.0%) or clinical depression (PM = 17.5%) with executive function only among women aged 75+ years. Functional social isolation explains a proportion of the total effect of depressive symptoms or clinical depression on executive function in women aged 75 and older. Although reverse causation cannot be ruled out, our findings suggest that interventions that reduce functional social isolation or depression in older women may promote executive function.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".