ArticleInnovation in aging2025
Predicting active and productive engagement: introducing the index of aging in midlife and beyond (IAM+).
Article in Innovation in aging, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Indicators of midlife health decline are needed to determine people's ability to engage in meaningful activities as they age and to implement early interventions to improve long-term health trajectories. Existing measures of physiological aging are unidimensional, expensive, difficult to collect, or focused on advanced disability, making it challenging to identify exposures that contribute to accelerate aging beginning in midlife. Research Design and Methods: Using the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), we developed the Index of Aging in Midlife and Beyond (IAM+), a 10-item scale that accounts for a range of abilities and domains of health using survey items including multimorbidity, functional capacity, and self-reported cognitive, mental, physical, and sensory health. We evaluated overall reliability and variability. Then, we tested the association between physically demanding jobs in ages 51-56 with trajectories of IAM+ scores in midlife and old age. Finally, we considered predictive validity by examining associations between midlife IAM+ scores and later life activity and health outcomes. Results: The IAM+ had acceptable reliability (alpha = 0.739-0.773). Distributions showed substantial variability. Physically demanding jobs were associated with higher IAM+ scores and accelerated increases in scores in midlife; differences in level, but not slopes, were sustained after retirement age. Higher IAM+ scores in midlife predicted reduced engagement in activities 10 years later, including early labor force exits, and predicted allostatic load, frailty, and mortality 20 years later. Discussion and Implications: The IAM+ is an acceptable and accessible new measure for evaluating health in midlife, with many applications for promoting active and productive engagement through later life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.