Migration and psychosis: a meta-analysis of incidence studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aims of this meta-analysis are (i) to estimate the pooled relative risk (RR) of developing non-affective psychotic disorder (NAPD) and affective psychotic disorder (APD) among migrants and their children; (ii) to adjust these results for socioeconomic status (SES); (iii) to examine the sources of heterogeneity that underlie the risk of NAPD. METHODS: We included population-based incidence studies that reported an age-adjusted RR with 95% confidence interval (CI) published 1 January 1977-12 October 2017 and used a random-effects model. RESULTS: We retrieved studies performed in Europe (n = 43), Israel (n = 3), Canada (n = 2) and Australia (n = 1). The meta-analysis yielded a RR, adjusted for age and sex, of 2.13 (95% CI 1.99-2.27) for NAPD and 2.94 (95% CI 2.28-3.79) for APD. The RRs diminished, but persisted after adjustment for SES. With reference to NAPD: a personal or parental history of migration to Europe from countries outside Europe was associated with a higher RR (RR = 2.94, 95% CI 2.63-3.29) than migration within Europe (RR = 1.88, 95% 1.62-2.18). The corresponding RR was lower in Israel (RR = 1.22; 0.99-1.50) and Canada (RR = 1.21; 0.85-1.74). The RR was highest among individuals with a black skin colour (RR = 4.19, 95% CI 3.42-5.14). The evidence of a difference in risk between first and second generation was insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: Positive selection may explain the low risk in Canada, while the change from exclusion to inclusion may do the same in Israel. Given the high risks among migrants from developing countries in Europe, social exclusion may have a pathogenic role.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it