MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406219269 · doi:10.1002/alz.089272

The role of social support and social contact in cognitive aging: A study of sex/gender and sexuality in the Health and Retirement Study

2024· article· en· W4406219269 on OpenAlexaff
D. Hanes, Arne Stinchcombe, Sean Clouston

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualitySocial contactPsychologyGerontologyHealth and Retirement StudyDevelopmental psychologyGender studiesSocial psychologySociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Sexual‐minority (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual [SM]) people may be at an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease or a related dementia (ADRD) from stress related to experiences of minoritization. Strong levels of social contact and social support decreases dementia risk; these effects may differ by sex/gender and sexuality. The purpose of this presentation is to elucidate the relationship between cognitive function, social support, and social networks with a focus on sexuality and sex/gender. Method Data analyzed were from waves 8‐14 (2006‐2018) of the Health and Retirement Study, a longitudinal survey of U.S. residents aged ≥51 years (N = 18,183). Participants who reported their sexual orientation as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, or those in same‐sex relationships for at least one wave were classified as SMs. A gender/sexuality variable was created with four levels: SM‐women (n = 101), heterosexual women (n = 9,942), SM‐men (n = 106), and heterosexual men (n = 8,034). Social contact and support were reported for network size, frequency of contact, and quality of interactions across four relationships: spouses, children, family, and friends. Cognitive function was measured on a 27‐point scale. The primary analysis consisted of a series of multiple linear regression models, treating cognition as the outcome, and adjusting for age, wealth, education, and race. Result Descriptive analysis showed that SM‐men and SM‐women tended to be younger and join the study later than heterosexual men and women, and at baseline, heterosexual men had lower cognitive scores compared to the other three groups (F = 82.44, p<0.001). Moderation analysis showed the relationship between positive spousal support and cognition was inconsistent across gender/sexuality groups (χ2 = 11.58, p = 0.009); SM‐women did not benefit from positive spousal support as much as other gender/sexuality groups. Greater frequency of social contact was associated with higher cognitive function, except among SM‐women where greater social contact was associated with lower cognitive function (χ2 = 9.65, p = 0.023). Support from other social groups did not have differential effects across gender/sexuality groups. Conclusion Findings highlighted variable and gendered effects of social support and social contact on cognitive functioning in aging SM people. Examining differential effects for SM/gender groups is essential to inclusive ADRD research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→