MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409691920 · doi:10.1080/13607863.2025.2473634

Contributors to age inequalities in loneliness among older adults: a decomposition analysis of 29 countries

2025· article· en· W4409691920 on OpenAlexaff
Robin Richardson, Sam Harper, Katherine M. Keyes, Christopher L. Crowe, Esteban Calvo

Bibliographic record

VenueAging & Mental Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthAgencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo
KeywordsLonelinessGerontologyInequalityPsychologyDemographyMedicineSociologyPsychiatryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Loneliness is highly prevalent and can have severe health consequences. While generally assumed to increase with age, some evidence suggests the relationship between age and loneliness may vary across country. In this study, we investigate the contribution of demographic and health factors to age-related inequalities in loneliness both within and across countries. METHOD: We used population-based cross-sectional data from 64,324 older adults (age range: 50-90 years) across 29 countries. Loneliness was measured with the 3 item UCLA loneliness scale. We quantified the magnitude of age inequalities in loneliness using concentration indices, and we estimated the contribution of demographic and health factors to age inequalities in loneliness using a decomposition approach. RESULTS: Loneliness was generally more concentrated among the oldest adults in the sample, although in the US and the Netherlands it was more concentrated among younger adults. Top contributors to age inequalities in loneliness were being unmarried and not working; however, the amount that factors contributed to inequalities differed markedly by country. CONCLUSION: Age inequalities in loneliness, and contributors to these inequalities, vary substantially across countries, suggesting that loneliness is not an inevitable consequence of age but may instead be shaped by environments within countries (e.g. social cohesion).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAging & Mental HealthSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207