Complex differences in infection rates between ethnic groups in Scotland: a retrospective, national census-linked cohort study of 1.65 million cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ethnicity can influence susceptibility to infection, as COVID-19 has shown. Few countries have systematically investigated ethnic variations in infection. METHODS: We linked the Scotland 2001 Census, including ethnic group, to national databases of hospitalizations/deaths and serological diagnoses of bloodborne viruses for 2001-2013. We calculated age-adjusted rate ratios (RRs) in 12 ethnic groups for all infections combined, 15 infection categories, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B (HBV) and hepatitis C (HCV) viruses. RESULTS: We analysed over 1.65 million infection-related hospitalisations/deaths. Compared with White Scottish, RRs for all infections combined were 0.8 or lower for Other White British, Other White and Chinese males and females, and 1.2-1.4 for Pakistani and African males and females. Adjustment for socioeconomic status or birthplace had little effect. RRs for specific infection categories followed similar patterns with striking exceptions. For HIV, RRs were 136 in African females and 14 in males; for HBV, 125 in Chinese females and 59 in males, 55 in African females and 24 in males; and for HCV, 2.3-3.1 in Pakistanis and Africans. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnic differences were found in overall rates and many infection categories, suggesting multiple causative pathways. We recommend census linkage as a powerful method for studying the disproportionate impact of COVID-19.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".