The temporal sequence and reciprocal relationships of frailty, social isolation and loneliness in older adults across 21 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether social isolation and loneliness may precede frailty status or whether frailty may precipitate social isolation and loneliness. We investigated the reciprocal and temporal sequence of social isolation, loneliness, and frailty among older adults across 21 years. METHODS: We used seven waves of the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam from 2302 Dutch older adults (M = 72.6 years, SD = 8.6, 52.1% female) ages 55 or older. Using random intercept cross-lagged panel models, we investigated between- and within-person associations of social isolation and loneliness with frailty. Frailty was measured using the Frailty Index. Loneliness was measured using the 11-item De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale. Social isolation was measured using a multi-domain 6-item scale. RESULTS: Social isolation and loneliness were weakly correlated across waves. At the between-person level, individuals with higher levels of frailty tended to have higher levels of social isolation but not loneliness. At the within-person level, the cross-lagged paths indicated that earlier frailty status predicted future social isolation and loneliness over time. However, prior social isolation was not associated with subsequent frailty except at time point 5 (T5). Loneliness at specific time points (T1, T4 and T6) predicted greater frailty at later time points (T2, T5 and T7). The results also supported reciprocal and contemporaneous relations between social isolation, loneliness and frailty. CONCLUSIONS: Social isolation and loneliness are potential outcomes of frailty. Public health policies and health practitioners should prioritise interventions targeting social connection among older adults with pre-frailty or frailty.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".