ArticleSSM - population health2026
A systematic review and empiric examination of the conceptual and analytic overlap between allostatic load and multimorbidity.
Article in SSM - population health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Allostatic load is conceptualised as a sub-clinical construct reflecting cumulative physiological wear associated with chronic environmental and psychosocial stress. However, marked heterogeneity in biomarker composition, threshold definition, and medication handling raises concerns about whether different specifications consistently capture a distinct subclinical signal of physiological dysregulation. Unresolved questions remain regarding conceptual and analytic overlap with multimorbidity and related health constructs, particularly when medication use is included in its specification. Objective: To summarise how population-based studies define and calculate allostatic load, and to assess how these methodological choices affect its relationship with multimorbidity outcomes. Methods: We conducted a PRISMA-guided systematic review of population-based studies indexed in Web of Science, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and CINAHL Ultimate in 2022, using the terms "allostasis" and "allostatic load" in post-2010 papers. We then analysed data from four population-based studies to characterise the association between alternative allostatic load specifications and general, cardiometabolic and immune multimorbidity using C-statistic-based measures. Results: Among 428 studies, we found substantial heterogeneity in operationalisation, particularly regarding biomarker composition, systems, threshold definitions, and medication handling. Empirical analyses showed moderate-to-high overlap between allostatic load and multimorbidity (C-statistics 0.64-0.86), with higher values for cardiometabolic and lower for immune phenotypes and following medication adjustment. Using different threshold definitions for allostatic load produced minimal changes in these associations. Conclusions: Allostatic load usefully captures multisystem dysregulation, but current operationalisations insufficiently reflect allostatic dynamics and blur subclinical-clinical boundaries. Future research should prioritise longitudinal designs, broader biomarker coverage, and theoretically coherent, transparent approaches to threshold definition and medication adjustment.
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.