ArticleThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2024
Multi-trajectories in different domains of social supports and subjective motoric cognitive risk syndrome: a 16-year group-based multi-trajectory analysis.
Article in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- From Dual Decline to Clinical Consequences: Mechanistic Pathways and Health Outcomes of Motoric Cognitive Risk Syndrome.Aging and disease · 2025Review
- Unpacking vitality for healthy aging-A call for multidimensional assessment and social integration.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2025Article
- Chinese validation of "subjective motoric cognitive risk syndrome" screening tool in patients with coronary artery disease using Rasch analysis.Frontiers in aging · 2025Article
- Current status and influencing factors of motor-cognitive risk syndrome in the older rural Chinese population: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to examine the longitudinal relationships between the trajectories of distinct subtypes of various domains of social supports and risk of subjective motoric cognitive risk (MCR) syndrome.
designLongitudinal cohort study. SETTING AND
participants2,279 participants in the Taiwan Longitudinal Study on Aging (TLSA) between 1999 and 2011.
methodA group-based multi-trajectory modeling (GBMTM) was implemented to identify distinct trajectory subtypes within various social support domains, encompassing social networks, emotional support, instrumental support, as well as working and economic status. Logistic regression models were then utilized to evaluate the associations between these trajectory subtypes and the risk of subjective MCR.
resultsAmong 2,279 participants, GBMTM identified four distinct trajectory subtypes: "low social support" (n = 371), "medium social support " (n = 862), "high social support" (n = 292), and "high social support with employment" (n = 754). The incidence rates of subjective MCR for these groups were 9.4%, 9.0%, 4.1%, and 0.8%, respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, education level, and comorbidities, both "low social support" (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 4.07, 95% CI [1.60-10.34]) and "medium social support" (aOR 3.10, 95% CI [1.26-7.66]) were significantly associated with an increased risk of subjective MCR compared to the "high social support with employment" group. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The current study demonstrates that social support significantly reduces the risk of subjective MCR, with lower support levels correlating to higher risk, necessitating further intervention studies to confirm the link between social support and risk of subjective MCR.
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.