ArticlePloS one2022
Research on the prediction of longevity from both individual and family perspectives.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis and systematic review of the relationship between sex and the risk or incidence of poststroke aphasia and its types.BMC geriatrics · 2024Pooled it
- Patterns of spatial inequality in China's longevity population and its socio-economic influences.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Determine the psychosocial well-being of elderly residents living in old-age homes.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increasing human longevity is of global interest. The present study explored the prediction of longevity from both individual perspective and family perspective based on demographic and psychosocial factors. A total of 186 longevous family members and 237 ordinary elderly family members participated in a cross-sectional study, and a sample of 62 longevous elderly and 57 ordinary elderly were selected for comparative research. The results showed that it was three times more female than male in longevous elderly group. Up to 71.2% of longevous elderly had no experience in education, which was significantly lower than that of ordinary elderly. Due to such extreme age, more widowed (81.4%) elderly than those in married (18.6%). Less than one-seventh of the longevous elderly maintained the habit of smoking, and about one-third of them liked drinking, both were significantly lower than that of ordinary elderly. In terms of psychosocial factors, longevous elderly showed lower neuroticism and social support, while higher extraversion, compared with the ordinary elderly. However, there were no significant differences between the two family groups in demographic and psychosocial variables, except longevous families showing lower scores in neuroticism. Regression analysis found that neuroticism, social support and smoking habit had significant impact on individuals' life span, then, neuroticism and psychoticism were the key factor to predict families' longevity. We conclude that good emotional management, benign interpersonal support, and moderation of habits are important factors for individual longevity, and the intergenerational influence of personality is closely related to family longevity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.