The Healthy Immigrant Effect and Aging in the United States and Other Western Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rising number of immigrants to the United States and other western countries has been accompanied by rising interest in the characteristics of immigrants including their mortality risk and health status. In general, immigrants to the United States, Canada, and Australia enjoy a health advantage over the native populations, which has been coined the healthy immigrant effect. The purpose of this review is to summarize findings on aging and the immigrant health effect in the 3 most common immigrant destinations the United States, Canada, Australia, as well as in Europe. Much of the research in the United States has focused on the so-called Hispanic Paradox or the favorable health of Hispanics relative to non-Hispanic whites despite lower average socioeconomic status as well as other risk factors, with recent research beginning to pay attention to dietary and genetic factors. In all 3 countries, there is evidence of a health convergence of immigrants relative to the native-born population over approximately 10-20 years. By the time they reach old age, immigrants experience high rates of comorbidity and disability. Immigrant health selection appears to be the key reason explaining the immigrant health advantage. Immigrants to Europe also appear to be health selected but not as consistently as in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Immigrant enclaves appear to confer health advantages in the United States among older Hispanics but appear to have negative consequences in Europe. More attention needs to be given to the health and health care needs of the rising numbers of refugees to Europe as well as refugees in the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".