Socio-Economic Disparities in the Burden of Seasonal Influenza: The Effect of Social and Material Deprivation on Rates of Influenza Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little empirical evidence in support of a relationship between rates of influenza infection and level of material deprivation (i.e., lack of access to goods and services) and social deprivation (i.e. lack of social cohesion and support). METHOD: Using validated population-level indices of material and social deprivation and medical billing claims for outpatient clinic and emergency department visits for influenza from 1996 to 2006, we assessed the relationship between neighbourhood rates of influenza and neighbourhood levels of deprivation using Bayesian ecological regression models. Then, by pooling data from neighbourhoods in the top decile (i.e., most deprived) and the bottom decile, we compared rates in the most deprived populations to the least deprived populations using age- and sex-standardized rate ratios. RESULTS: Deprivation scores ranged from one to five with five representing the highest level of deprivation. We found a 21% reduction in rates for every 1 unit increase in social deprivation score (rate ratio [RR] 0.79, 95% Credible Interval [CrI] 0.66, 0.97). There was little evidence of a meaningful linear relationship with material deprivation (RR 1.06, 95% CrI 0.93, 1.24). However, relative to neighbourhoods with deprivation scores in the bottom decile, those in the top decile (i.e., most materially deprived) had substantially higher rates (RR 2.02, 95% Confidence Interval 1.99, 2.05). CONCLUSION: Though it is hypothesized that social and material deprivation increase risk of acute respiratory infection, we found decreasing healthcare utilization rates for influenza with increasing social deprivation. This finding may be explained by the fewer social contacts and, thus, fewer influenza exposure opportunities of the socially deprived. Though there was no evidence of a linear relationship with material deprivation, when comparing the least to the most materially deprived populations, we observed higher rates in the most materially deprived populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".