ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2025
Criteria for detection of married or cohabiting couples in the UK Biobank.
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A comparison of partner resemblance trends across putative same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the UK biobank.Scientific reports · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe UK Biobank (UKB) dataset contains a large number of spouse/partner pairs (hereafter, "couples"), making it a valuable resource for research on human mating. UKB data does not report relationships between participants, and UKB's preliminary participant colocation data (based on participants sharing the same street address) is not available for new researchers to request. This has led to different criteria for identification of spouse/partner pairs and highly discrepant sample sizes across papers, potentially contributing to heterogeneity in results. To address this, we developed and validated a standardized method for identifying couples that maximizes sample size while minimizing selection bias.
methodsWe evaluated combinations of geographically-derived variables for identifying colocated UKB participants and selected six variables that performed well when compared to with the original UKB colocation data. These variables, such as "distance to coast," do not reveal participants' precise locations but are unlikely to match for non-colocated individuals. We then established additional criteria to confirm that colocated participants shared a household and were likely to be couples. These criteria were designed to be compatible with either geographic colocation or the original UKB colocation data.
resultsThe geographically-derived variables identified 92,510 putative couples, compared to 89,278 detected using the UKB colocation data. Further analyses suggested that the additional pairs identified in our geographic sample were likely valid pairs not captured by the UKB colocation data. We also assessed certain criteria used in previous studies-such as age, income, and duration of residence-and demonstrated how they could result in biased or non-representative samples. DISCUSSION: Our approach produced a large, robust sample of couples while minimizing false positives. The criteria are flexible and can be applied using either geographic or UKB colocation data. To facilitate further research, we have made the R code for implementing these criteria publicly available at https://github.com/kkellysci/UKBCouples/.
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.