Exploring the differential impacts of social isolation, loneliness, and their combination on the memory of an aging population: A 6-year longitudinal study of the CLSA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Memory plays a crucial role in cognitive health. Social isolation (SI) and loneliness (LON) are recognized risk factors for global cognition, although their combined effects on memory have been understudied in the literature. This study used three waves of data over six years from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging to examine whether SI and LON are individually and jointly associated with memory in community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults (n = 14,208). LON was assessed with the question: "In the last week, how often did you feel lonely?". SI was measured using an index based on marital/cohabiting status, retirement status, social activity participation, and social network contacts. Memory was evaluated with combined z-scores from two administrations of the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (immediate-recall, delayed-recall). We conducted our analyses using all available data across the three timepoints and retained participants with missing covariate data. Linear mixed models were used to regress combined memory scores onto SI and LON, adjusting for sociodemographic, health, functional ability, and lifestyle variables. Experiencing both SI and LON had the greatest inverse effect on memory (least-squares mean: -0.80 [95 % confidence-interval: -1.22, -0.39]), followed by LON alone (-0.73 [-1.13, -0.34]), then SI alone (-0.69 [-1.09, -0.29]), and lastly by being neither lonely nor isolated (-0.65 [-1.05, -0.25]). Sensitivity analyses confirmed this hierarchy of effects. Policies developed to enhance memory in middle-aged and older adults might achieve greater benefits when targeting the alleviation of both SI and LON rather than one or the other individually.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".