Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41671000›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2026

Social Asymmetry and Risk of Morbidity and Mortality.

Pei Qin, Eileen K Graham, Anthony D Ong, Andrew Steptoe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Pei QinDepartment of Behavioral Science and Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Eileen K GrahamDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.
Anthony D OngDepartment of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Andrew SteptoeDepartment of Behavioral Science and Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Project-001R01AG017644 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF LONDON INST OF NEUROLOGY · PI Andrew Steptoe · 2000 to 2026
$56.2M
Advancing the Study of Social Isolation, Loneliness, and Cognitive Functioning in Older Adults Through the Use of Integrative Data AnalysisR01AG082954 · NIA · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI Eileen Kranz Graham · 2023 to 2026
$2.4M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG017644NIA NIH HHS R01 AG082954
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Social asymmetry refers to the discrepancy between subjective loneliness and objective social connections. Although both loneliness and isolation have been linked with risk of premature mortality and morbidity, the association between the 2 is poorly understood. Objective: To explore the associations between social asymmetry and risk of incident morbidity and mortality in a national population cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study using data from wave 4 (2008-2009) of the English Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSA) as baseline. Participants were aged 50 years and older living in England. Data were analyzed from April to August 2025. Exposures: Social asymmetry was quantified as the residual score from regressing scaled loneliness on scaled social isolation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incident cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), dementia, and all-cause mortality, through data linkage to hospital episode statistics and mortality registry data up to 2024. Results: Of 7845 participants (mean [SD] age at baseline, 65.5 [9.5] years; 4283 [54.6%] women; 7694 [98.1%] White and 151 [1.9%] other race or ethnicity) with a mean (SD) follow-up period of 13.6 (4.2) years, 2775 deaths and 2415 CVD, 989 COPD, and 710 dementia cases were recorded. Higher social asymmetry (higher loneliness than estimated by isolation) was associated with increased risk of CVD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06). Compared with those in the socially resilient group, those in the socially vulnerable group had a higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.22), CVD (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.30), and COPD (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04-1.42). Compared with the concordant low lonely group (low loneliness, low isolation), participants in the concordant high lonely group (high loneliness, high isolation) had an increased risk for all health outcomes investigated, while those in the discordant susceptible category (high loneliness, low isolation) had an increased risk for CVD and mortality; the discordant robust group (low loneliness, high isolation) had no association for any outcomes except for dementia. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, higher social asymmetry was associated with increased risk of incident morbidity and mortality, emphasizing the importance of evaluating both loneliness and isolation in studies of health outcomes. Future interventions could leverage this novel measurement to identify high-risk groups to target.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesLonelinessMortalitySocial IsolationAgedDementiaEnglandFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedMorbidityProspective StudiesPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID41671000
PMCPMC12895283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.