War-related stress exposure and mortality: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Domestic and international wars continue to be pervasive in the 21st century. This study summarizes the effects of war-related stress on all-cause mortality using meta-analyses and meta-regressions. METHODS: A keyword search was performed, supplemented by extensive iterative hand-searches for observational studies of war-related stress and mortality. Two hundred and twenty mortality risk estimates from 30 studies were extracted, providing data on more than 9 million persons. RESULTS: The mean hazard ratio (HR) was 1.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-1.13] among HRs adjusted for age and additional covariates. The mean effect for men was 1.14 (CI 1.00-1.31), and for women it was 0.92 (CI 0.66-1.28). No differences were found for various follow-up durations or for various types of war stress. Neither civilians nor military personnel had an elevated mortality risk. Those exposed to a combat zone during the Vietnam War had a slightly higher chance of death (HR 1.11; 95% CI 1.00-1.23). CONCLUSIONS: The results show that, over all, exposure to war-stress did not increase the risk of death when studies were well controlled. Effects were small when found. This lack of substantial effect may be the result of selection processes, developed resiliency and/or institutional support.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".