ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2026
Estimating the effects of hypothetical loneliness interventions on memory function among middle-aged and older adults in the United States.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Loneliness is associated with faster memory decline in mid- and late life, but it remains unclear whether interventions to ameliorate loneliness protect memory function. We examined the impact of sustained and one-time loneliness interventions on memory function among US middle-aged and older adults. Using the nationally representative Health and Retirement Study in 2006-2018, we estimated counterfactual average memory scores over 12 years of follow-up under the following scenarios: (A) a hypothetical intervention eliminating loneliness only at baseline (baseline intervention), (B) a hypothetical intervention eliminating loneliness for 10 years (sustained intervention), and (C) the natural course (no intervention). We used targeted maximum likelihood estimation to account for time-varying confounding. The analytic sample included 10 136 participants (median baseline age 64 years, representing 50 million community-dwelling adults). Over 12 years, estimated mean memory scores declined by 0.58 standardized units (95% CI, 0.56, 0.60) under the natural course; the difference in decline (vs natural course) was 0.00 standardized units (95% CI, -0.01, 0.01) under the baseline intervention and 0.02 standardized units (95% CI, -0.02, 0.05) under the sustained intervention. Compared to the natural course, we did not find evidence that either the baseline or sustained intervention was associated with better memory function over follow-up.
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.