MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414465087 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0329800

Reclaiming wellness: Key factors in restoring optimal well-being in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging

2025· article· en· W4414465087 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mabel Ho, Esme Fuller‐Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLongitudinal studyBaseline (sea)Longitudinal dataHealthy agingKey (lock)Life course approachOlder people

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study examines characteristics of older adults who have regained optimal well-being at the end of the three-year study. The definition of optimal well-being used in this study refers to having adequate social support, high levels of older adults' subjective perception of their aging process, physical health, mental health, happiness and life satisfaction and being free of limitations in Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs), disabling pain or discomfort, severe mental illness or cognitive decline in the preceding year. METHODS: A secondary data analysis was conducted using the first two waves of data from the comprehensive cohort of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA), a large, national, longitudinal study on aging. The sample included 8332 older adults who were not in optimal well-being at baseline and aged 60+ at time 2. Bivariate and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were used to examine which baseline characteristics were associated with achieving optimal well-being approximately three years later. RESULTS: The prevalence of optimal well-being at time 2 was higher among respondents who, at baseline, were younger, married, physically active, not obese, non-smokers, had higher income, without sleeping problems, diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis, and achieved at least two of the four wellness domains (i.e., physical, psychological and emotional, social, and self-rated wellness) were more likely to be in optimal well-being at time 2 than their counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Old age does not necessarily result in poor physical health, nor is a decline in well-being inevitable. Almost one in four respondents who were in less than optimal well-being at baseline regained well-being over the ensuing approximately 3 years. Further research could investigate the association between policies and programs and their support for older adults in regaining optimal well-being in later life after a period of suboptimal well-being.

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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207