Associations between dimensions of the social environment and cardiometabolic risk factors: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: The social environment (SE), including social contacts, norms and support, is an understudied element of the living environment which impacts health. We aim to comprehensively summarize the evidence on the association between the SE and risk factors of cardiometabolic disease (CMD). Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis based on studies published in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection from inception to 16 February 2021. Studies that used a risk factor of CMD, e.g., HbA1c or blood pressure, as outcome and social environmental factors such as area-level deprivation or social network size as independent variables were included. Titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data appraisal and extraction were based on the study protocol published in PROSPERO. Data were synthesized through vote counting and meta-analyses. Results: From the 7521 records screened, 168 studies reported 1050 associations were included in this review. Four meta-analyses based on 24 associations suggested that an unfavorable social environment was associated with increased risk of cardiometabolic risk factors, with three of them being statistically significant. For example, individuals that experienced more economic and social disadvantage had a higher "CVD risk scores" (OR = 1.54, 95%CI: 1.35 to 1.84). Of the 458 associations included in the vote counting, 323 (71%) pointed towards unfavorable social environments being associated with higher CMD risk. Conclusion: Higher economic and social disadvantage seem to contribute to unfavorable CMD risk factor profiles, while evidence for other dimensions of the social environment is limited.
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 | 0.021 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".