Comparative Analysis of 16 Aging Concepts and Their Influence on Aging Narratives: Bibliometric and Content Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Globally, various aging concepts (such as healthy aging, successful aging, and active aging) have emerged to promote the goal of "aging well" and have gained widespread attention in academia, policy, and practice to change the negative narrative on aging. However, whether and how these aging concepts have contributed to changing the negative narratives remains unclear. Moreover, they are not clearly defined nor widely agreed upon, often creating ambiguity and confusion. Objective: This paper aims to provide a comprehensive review and comparative analysis of 16 aging concepts, with a particular focus on how their evolution in research has contributed to shifting the narrative surrounding aging. Methods: This study used the bibliometric software VosViewer (Center for Science and Technology Studies) to visualize international collaboration among countries and cocitation networks among journals. This helped identify which countries and journals play central roles in research on aging concepts and revealed how academic contributions are distributed globally. Additionally, content analysis supported by the corpus linguistics software AntConc (Waseda University) was conducted to examine and compare the main focuses, applications, challenges, and future research directions of these concepts. Results: The findings indicate that while all 16 aging concepts share the common goal of improving the quality of life for older adults, they offer different perspectives, encompassing health management, social participation, mental health, and technological innovation. Key challenges to achieving the goal of each aging concept were identified, including unequal access to health care resources, barriers to social participation, and difficulties in adopting technology. Conclusions: The overall impact of these aging concepts on reshaping negative aging narratives remains relatively limited. Future efforts should focus on advancing technology, optimizing policies, enhancing social support systems, and fostering global collaboration to provide innovative and sustainable solutions that promote the overall well-being of older adults.
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 | 0.022 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.174 | 0.217 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".