Food insecurity status and mortality among adults in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Food insecurity is associated with a wide array of negative health outcomes and higher health care costs but there has been no population-based study of the association of food insecurity and mortality in high-income countries. METHODS: We use cross-sectional population surveys linked to encoded health administrative data. The sample is 90,368 adults, living in Ontario and respondents in the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). The outcome of interest is all-cause mortality at any time after the interview and within four years of the interview. The primary variable of interest is food insecurity status, with individuals classed as "food secure", "marginally food insecure", "moderately food insecure", or "severely food insecure". We use logistic regression models to determine the association of mortality with food insecurity status, adjusting for other social determinants of health. RESULTS: Using a full set of covariates, in comparison to food secure individuals, the odds of death at any point after the interview are 1.28 (CI = 1.08, 1.52) for marginally food insecure individuals, 1.49 (CI = 1.29, 1.73) for moderately food insecure individuals, and 2.60 (CI = 2.17, 3.12) for severely food insecure individuals. When mortality within four years of the interview is considered, the odds are, respectively, 1.19 (CI = 0.95, 1.50), 1.65 (CI = 1.37, 1.98), and 2.31 (CI = 1.81, 2.93). INTERPRETATION: These findings demonstrate that food insecurity is associated with higher mortality rates and these higher rates are especially large for the most severe food insecurity category. Efforts to reduce food insecurity should be incorporated into broader public health initiatives to reduce mortality.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".