Does money buy better health? Unpacking the income to health association after midlife
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article estimates the effect of household financial resources on health after midlife using models that minimize health-related selectivity and unobserved heterogeneity bias. I focus on the self-rated health and mobility limitations of adults transitioning into retirement over six panels of the Health and Retirement Study (1992-2002; age 51-61 at wave one; N = 7602). Standard regression models that adjust for health-related selection with prospective and retrospective controls suggest a significant influence of long-term income on health, but an insignificant influence of short-term income. Further adjustment for unobserved fixed effects also suggests that short-term income is insignificant. Sizable recent and long-term health feedbacks to income for a portion of the HRS respondents underscore the need to control for the confounding influence of health over the lifecourse. Together these results suggest that adults after midlife are heterogeneous with respect to the causal and selective processes generating the observed association between income and health.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".