A rich social environment is associated with better cognitive health outcomes for older adults, study finds

With awareness growing that lack of social connection may be a health hazard, researchers say it’s important for the public to better understand the connections

McGill University

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

Research by an interdisciplinary team from McGill University and Université Laval provides new insights into the links between social factors and cognitive health among aging adults.

While previous research had found positive correlations between specific measures of social connectedness and a variety of health outcomes, this study appears to have been the first to create profiles aggregating multiple social factors and to see how those correlated with cognitive health in older adults, the researchers said.

The team derived three social environment categories (weaker, intermediate and richer) by assembling 24 social variables – reflecting such elements as network size, social support, social cohesion and social isolation – using data from approximately 30,000 participants in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA). That data is from a nationally representative cohort of randomly selected Canadians ages 45-84 at the time baseline information was collected.

For cognition, the researchers examined three domains: executive function, episodic memory and prospective memory, using data from a battery of tests previously administered to CLSA participants.

Higher social scores, higher cognitive scores

“We identified significant associations between the social profiles and all three cognitive domains, with the intermediate and richer profiles generally exhibiting better cognitive outcomes than the weaker profile,” explained Daiva Nielsen, Associate Professor at the McGill School of Human Nutrition and co-first author of the paper.

The researcher noted that the effect size of the associations (a statistical measure assessing the strength of the relationship between variables) was, however, relatively small, which is in keeping with previous studies on this topic.

Nielsen noted that the effect sizes were somewhat stronger for participants who were 65 or older. According to the researcher, this suggests that the social environment-cognition association may be more significant in later stages of life.

The science of social connection and cognitive health

Awareness has been increasing of the importance of social connection in public health.

“Lack of social connection has been shown to be comparable to more widely acknowledged disease risk factors such as smoking, physical inactivity and obesity. It is important to translate this knowledge to the public to empower individuals to help build meaningful connections within their communities,” she said.

The authors did note that the associations found in the current study are correlational rather than causal, and it is possible, for example, that poor cognitive health also leads individuals to withdraw from social life.

The power of interdisciplinary research

The team, whose members stem from such diverse fields as marketing, human behaviour, nutrition and epidemiology, hopes to continue using CLSA data and the newly created social profiles in future research, said Nielsen.

The next steps involve studying changes in social environments and various health-related outcomes, including diet and chronic disease risk, she added.

“This work is an excellent example of the benefits of multidisciplinary research teams that can tackle complex research questions and bring diverse knowledge and expertise,” she concluded.

About the study

Social environment profiles and cognitive outcomes: a cross-sectional latent class analysis using the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging, by Katherine Labonté, Daiva E. Nielsen, Laurette Dubé and Catherine Paquet, was published in Aging & Mental Health.

This research was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Catalyst Grant.

---

Journal

Aging & Mental Health

DOI

10.1080/13607863.2025.2581096 

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Social environment profiles and cognitive outcomes: a cross-sectional latent class analysis using the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging

 

How the university turns royalties into a self-funding engine for innovation

Rutgers University

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

Every year, university researchers discover potential new drugs, diagnostics, and medical devices that could transform patient care. Yet many of those ideas stall in the “valley of death,” the stretch between a promising experiment and a product mature enough to attract investors or industry partners. 

Rutgers has spent the past eight years working to change that by building a self-sustaining fund that reinvests revenue from successfully commercialized technologies into the next wave of innovations while also surrounding faculty with industry expertise. 

The results to date have been auspicious – so strong, in fact, that leaders from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) asked university officials to write a paper that now appears in Nature Biotechnology, explaining their model for others to follow.

“One of the key elements at Rutgers was to dedicate a portion of the licensing revenue coming from the successful commercialization of the university’s intellectual property assets back into the research and development of emerging technologies,” said Reynold A. Panettieri Jr., vice chancellor of translational medicine and science at Rutgers Health. 

Many research universities have created internal programs to support the maturation of nascent technologies through early stages of development. Some rely on federal programs, such as the NIH Research Evaluation and Commercialization Hub initiative. Others depend on major philanthropic gifts, state-sponsored proof-of-concept programs, or large industry and investor partnerships. 

Those approaches can work, but they’re fragile. Grants end, donors and partners change priorities, and few institutions have a stable, built-in source of money for translational work.  

According to Pragati Sharma, associate director of commercialization funding at the Rutgers Office for Research, a national survey of university funding programs found Rutgers was the only institution in that cohort with a dedicated patent-policy revenue stream for commercialization.

“This is about making sure taxpayer-funded research doesn’t stop at the publication stage,” said Michael E. Zwick, senior vice president of research and head of the Office for Research. “We want more of our discoveries to cross the valley of death and become products and services that improve lives.”  

The story began in 2017, when Rutgers launched its TechAdvance® program to support university inventions across fields by using royalties from a pediatric enzyme replacement therapy developed by university researchers.

It continued in 2019, when Rutgers received federal funds to launch the HealthAdvance Fund®, which is focused on preparing health-technology projects to compete for external funding.

In 2022, Rutgers took the biggest step: it revised its patent policy so that success stories help earlier-stage projects. Under that formula, 5% is earmarked for internal commercialization programs, such as TechAdvance® and HealthAdvance Fund®. 

Because that allocation comes from overall technology transfer revenue, rather than from any single deal, it gives Rutgers a predictable stream of funding to advance early-stage projects, even when external grants are scarce. 

To stretch those dollars and increase the odds of success, Rutgers adds far more than money. Projects must include industry input before they receive funding. Innovators work with mentors-in-residence and industry reviewers who help shape project plans. Funded teams work with external advisers who track progress and push for experiments that will provide the data points commercial partners need to invest confidently. 

“Bringing in investors and industry experts early doesn’t just bring money,” said Sharma. “It brings their experience about what the market actually needs and what data will support a meaningful inflection point for a technology.” 

Rutgers also invites strategic and financial investors to co-fund select projects. In those cases, the university and outside partners share the cost of development, and potential licensees help design the work while getting an early look at the teams and technologies. 

The model shows tangible results.  

Since 2017, Rutgers’ internal commercialization funding programs have awarded a little over $12 million to university innovators. The HealthAdvance Fund® has provided over $6 million to 43 projects, while TechAdvance® has contributed about $6.27 million to 115 projects. Together, they have generated an estimated 2.5 to 3.5 times that investment in follow-on funding from venture capital, licensing agreements and additional federal and state grants. 

So far, HealthAdvance projects have produced six startups, and several  TechAdvance®-funded technologies have been licensed to either existing companies or Rutgers spinouts, including a small-molecule drug that first received internal funding in 2018 and 2019 and was licensed to a small pharmaceutical company this year.  

Given how long biomedical products take to reach the market, Rutgers leaders said the greatest financial and clinical impacts are still ahead. 

The model is also changing how Rutgers thinks about scholarship. Innovation and entrepreneurial activities – including patenting, startup formation, translational grants, and commercialization-focused sponsored research – now contribute to tenure and promotion. 

“Faculty used to see commercialization as something separate from their academic careers,” says Vincent A. Smeraglia, executive director of new ventures at the Office for Research and co-author of the article. “By recognizing patents and product development in our tenure and promotion criteria, we are telling our researchers that advancing discoveries toward real-world impact is part of Rutgers’ core mission.” 

---

Journal

Nature Biotechnology

DOI

10.1038/s41587-025-02972-7 

Method of Research

News article

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Sustainability of gap funding programs aimed at commercializing academic innovation

Article Publication Date

26-Jan-2026

 

Hospital programs for violence victims can prevent future harm, Boston University study finds

Regular engagement with violence intervention programs can halve likelihood of being revictimized or committing violence

Boston University

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

A hospital-based program that supports victims of gun and knife violence can reduce the likelihood that those victims will be reinjured or commit violence themselves, according to a new Boston University study.

The findings offer hope for similar programs nationwide and may encourage cities to target investment in them to reduce gun violence, according to lead researcher Jonathan Jay, a BU School of Public Health associate professor of community health sciences. Jay calls the study of the Boston Medical Center (BMC)–founded Violence Intervention Advocacy Program (VIAP) “my most important work,” because of its potential to provide advocates with evidence in support of such efforts: “If we invest more in hospital-based violence intervention programs, will that help cities get their gun violence levels down?”

For survivors of gunshot and knife wounds treated in the emergency department, VIAP provides post-discharge help with mental health and family support services and assistance, if necessary, with connections to housing, food, employment, education, and other needs. The study found consistent engagement with the program could reduce the likelihood of being revictimized, or committing violence, by 50 percent two to three years after discharge. BMC, BU’s primary teaching hospital, is among more than 60 hospitals in the country with a hospital-based violence intervention program.

“When people’s basic social and emotional needs are met, they are far less likely to be involved in violence,” says Jay. “People who get shot or stabbed are vastly more likely to have been excluded from systems—kicked out of school, kicked out of housing, to have some history of criminal legal system involvement so that it’s harder for them to get a job.”

The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, analyzed the records of 1,300-plus shooting or stabbing survivors, ages 16 to 34, who were at high risk of violence. Almost half of them worked with VIAP sometime in the first month after their discharge, and the researchers found that brief interaction did not appreciably lessen the risk of future violence when compared with patients who never used the program. But the roughly 10 percent of survivors who regularly worked with VIAP in the first two months after discharge saw their likelihood of being involved in violence cut in half.

“There’s an old saying that hurt people hurt people, and that really applies to the work we do,” says Lavon Anderson, VIAP’s housing coordinator. “VIAP helps prevent future violence by helping people heal from trauma, stabilize their lives, and work toward goals that may not have felt possible before. When people feel supported and hopeful, they’re much less likely to return to cycles of violence.”

Currently, when someone is admitted to the hospital with a violent penetrating injury, they meet with VIAP patient advocates during their stay or soon after. Those advocates build relationships and conduct needs assessments to help target issues—from safety planning to mental health to housing insecurity—that could slow recovery or increase potential involvement in future violence. Many of the advocates have lived experience in the communities the program serves. The mental health support is given in collaboration with BMC’s Community Violence Response Team.

While VIAP especially benefits those who frequently avail themselves of the program, Jay says that some patients probably need just a few visits to get back on track post-violence. Other hospital-based violence intervention programs provide stipends to encourage attendance, but Anderson is wary of that approach: “From my experience, we see a higher success rate with participants who engage because they’re genuinely ready for change. They’re self-motivated, and our program serves as a tool to support the direction they’ve already chosen.”

Data from Jay’s broader research into gun violence, adds Anderson, suggests that “when one person chooses not to feed into violence, hundreds of people can be affected—family members, peers, and the broader community. Seeing both the scale of that impact and how engagement influences the likelihood of someone returning to harmful behavior was eye-opening. That insight directly led me to increase my engagement with those who are on the fence, striking a careful balance between not pushing and being clearly present when they’re ready.”

VIAP differs from other intervention programs, Jay says, in its unusually robust services—it has 13 staffers. Although the study focused on young adults, VIAP is more flexible than many other programs, he says, in its availability to violence victims outside of the highest-risk groups and in letting participants decide how often to avail themselves of its services.

While other programs may limit eligibility—to young adults, for instance—and dictate weekly attendance, according to Jay, “VIAP says, we don’t care about that. If you’re the victim of violence and you were at the emergency department at BMC, we will help you.”

Jay’s previous research has examined young people’s exposure to gun violence, the connections between urban environments and health/safety risks, and strategies for reducing racial disparities in youth firearm injuries. What makes his VIAP study so pivotal, he says, is its potential to boost support for similar programs, especially since strategies such as gun safety laws are losing ground in many states. The United States saw almost 47,000 gun-related deaths in 2023, the latest year for complete data.

“A lot of other [hospitals] could show these results to hospital administrators and other funders,” says Jay.

Anderson has fingers crossed. “I’m hopeful that Professor Jay’s findings will support expansion of the program and further strengthen our work. We already share our approach with programs nationwide, and I think his research can really help fine-tune what we do.”

 

The Violence Intervention Advocacy Program study was supported by a Fund for a Safer Future grant and included researchers from Boston University’s School of Public Health, Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, and Sargent College of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences; Boston Medical Center; Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia; Health Alliance for Violence Intervention; and the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

---

Journal

Annals of Internal Medicine

DOI

10.7326/ANNALS-25-01678 

Method of Research

Observational study

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Effects of a Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Program on Community Violence in Boston, Massachusetts: A Target Trial Emulation

Article Publication Date

27-Jan-2026

National Science Foundation grant funds pesticide exposure research at IU

Indiana University

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

From tropical forests to smallholder farms, Indiana University’s Michael Wasserman is tracing how naturally occurring and human-made chemicals move through ecosystems, and how agricultural change may impact health for both people and wildlife.

Wasserman, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Human Biology in the College of Arts and Sciences at IU Bloomington, focuses his research on how pesticides and other environmental chemicals interact with the endocrine system in primates and humans. The endocrine system is the network of glands that release hormones to regulate many biological processes in the body. Wasserman’s earlier studies documented chemical exposure in wild primates living far from direct human activity. Now, the latest phase of Wasserman’s research places farming communities at the center of the picture, connecting household practices to environmental and biological exposure across entire landscapes.

His research began by investigating naturally occurring plant chemicals in tropical forests, where primates ingest leaves and other foods with hormone-mimicking compounds.

“At a broad level, what I work on are interactions between primates and exogenous, or external, chemicals that interact with the endocrine system,” Wasserman said. “Chemicals coming from the environment into the body that can mimic hormones, bind to hormone receptors and have physiological and potentially behavioral effects because of that activity.”

After joining IU, Wasserman expanded his work to include anthropogenic chemicals through a collaboration with environmental chemist Marta Venier at IU’s O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. That partnership helped launch one of the few primate-focused studies examining pollution exposure in wild animals.

“When we started it, we didn’t really know what we were going to find,” Wasserman said. “There just aren’t many people studying pollution exposure in primates.”

Working in forested sites in Costa Rica and Uganda, his research team detected pesticides and flame retardants in the air. Using chemical analysis of primate fecal samples, they confirmed that monkeys and apes were not only encountering these pollutants but had ingested them.

Those findings raised broader questions: Where were the chemicals coming from, and how were human activities shaping exposure across ecosystems? To answer those questions, Wasserman adjusted the focus of his research beyond the forest canopy and into nearby farming communities.

With support from a more than $1 million National Science Foundation grant through the Dynamics of Integrated Socio-Environmental Systems (DISES) program, the project now focuses on 12 communities surrounding Kibale National Park in western Uganda.

In Phase 1, completed last year, researchers surveyed roughly 600 households about farming practices, pesticide use, environmental change and access to agricultural products.

“Uganda is going through a major agricultural transition,” Wasserman said. “Moving away from traditional farming methods to more intensive pesticide and fertilizer use to increase productivity.”

Phase 2, now underway, follows 108 households over an entire year to capture seasonal variation in farming and exposure.

“Each household keeps a diary of farming practices, what chemicals they use, when they use them and what crops they’re applied to,” Wasserman explained.

At the same time, the research team is measuring exposure across three interconnected areas: people, wildlife, and the environment.

Human exposure is assessed using silicone wristbands worn by study participants, which absorb airborne and skin-contact chemicals encountered during daily life. Environmental exposure is measured through air sampling in and around communities and farms. Wildlife exposure is assessed through fecal samples collected from primates living in and around the national park.

“We suspect that farmers are using these pesticides more and more because they’re perceiving environmental risk that is changing due to shifts in climate, dealing with more fungal growth, more insect pests,” Wasserman explained. However, some farmers involved in the study are reporting symptoms like nausea, burning eyes, or loss of appetite.

“They have to maintain food productivity for food security, but also, everyone we’ve talked to, from households to government officials, is interested in these tradeoffs with health effects from exposure,” he noted.

The long-term goal is not simply documentation but practical guidance.

“We want to inform communities about what levels of exposure are taking place and suggest ways to reduce that exposure,” Wasserman said. “That protects human health and wildlife health.”

The project plans to share results through community meetings and Ugandan media outlets once the study concludes.

Importantly, this work reflects Wasserman’s interdisciplinary background in anthropology, zoology and environmental science, as well as a research team that spans environmental chemistry, human geography, climatology and primatology.

“The key to this project is bringing different disciplines together,” he said. “That’s what allowed us to move out of the forest and work with communities, while still keeping primates at the center of the ecological picture.”

Moreover, IU students play a central role in the research. Undergraduate and graduate researchers participate in fieldwork across multiple countries, gaining experience that leads to careers in academia, government and health fields.

“I really think experiential learning is critical,” Wasserman said. “Independent research, study abroad opportunities, and fieldwork give students a way to see how science connects directly to people’s lives.” As Director of the Human Biology Program (HUBI), he is working to expand these experiences for undergraduates in HUBI and across Bloomington and other IU campuses.

As agricultural systems continue to intensify worldwide, the project’s findings are expected to resonate far beyond Uganda, offering a clearer picture of how human decisions ripple through shared environments, and across species.