MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415903243 · doi:10.3389/phrs.2025.1608740

Biological Mechanisms Linking Social Adversity and Cognition

2025· review· en· W4415903243 on OpenAlexafffund
Aileen Liang, Emma Watt, Noha Gomaa

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic health reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicStress Responses and Cortisol
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersSchulich School of Medicine and DentistryCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University
KeywordsCognitionDisadvantagedSocial cognitionSocial cognitive theoryMechanism (biology)MEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Various studies have shown that social adversity, such as loneliness or low SES, are linked with worse cognitive outcomes, though underlying biological mechanisms remain unclear. This scoping review aims to summarize existing evidence on biological processes that may serve as mediators underlying this association. Methods: Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, studies measuring social adversity, cognition, and at least one biological mechanism were included. Results were summarized narratively and in tabular formats. Results: Twelve studies (n = 12) examined links between social adversity, cognition, and biological mechanisms. Inflammation, allostatic load, genetics and genetic aging markers were the three main biological mechanisms identified as potential mediators. Conclusion: Several studies suggest that these biological mechanisms may mediate the link between social adversity and cognitive decline. However, further research is needed to clarify these complex relationships, which are crucial for developing targeted interventions, especially for socially disadvantaged populations.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.412
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.035 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic health reviewsSame topicStress Responses and CortisolFrench-language works237,207