Income Inequality and Mortality: Results From a Longitudinal Study of Older Residents of São Paulo, Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We determined whether community-level income inequality was associated with mortality among a cohort of older adults in São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: We analyzed the Health, Well-Being, and Aging (SABE) survey, a sample of community-dwelling older adults in São Paulo (2000-2007). We used survival analysis to examine the relationship between income inequality and risk for mortality among older individuals living in 49 districts of São Paulo. RESULTS: Compared with individuals living in the most equal districts (lowest Gini quintile), rates of mortality were higher for those living in the second (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] = 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87, 2.41), third (AHR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.20, 3.20), fourth (AHR = 1.34, 95% CI = 0.81, 2.20), and fifth quintile (AHR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.10, 2.74). When we imputed missing data and used poststratification weights, the adjusted hazard ratios for quintiles 2 through 5 were 1.72 (95% CI = 1.13, 2.63), 1.41 (95% CI = 0.99, 2.05), 1.13 (95% = 0.75, 1.70) and 1.30 (95% CI = 0.90, 1.89), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find a dose-response relationship between area-level income inequality and mortality. Our findings could be consistent with either a threshold association of income inequality and mortality or little overall association.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".