A Global Meta-analysis of the Immigrant Mortality Advantage
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
A large body of research on the “Healthy Immigrant Effect” (or “Paradox”) has reported an immigrant mortality advantage. However, other studies do not find such significant effects, and some even present contradictory evidence. This article is the first systematic meta-analysis that investigates the immigration-mortality relationship from a global perspective, examining 1,933 all-cause and cardiovascular mortality risk estimates from 103 publications. Our comprehensive analysis allows us to assess interactions between origin and destination regions and to reexamine, on a global scale, some of the most notable explanations for the immigrant mortality advantage, including suggestions that this paradox may be primarily the result of selection effects. We find evidence for the existence of a mild immigrant mortality advantage for working-age individuals. However, the relationship holds only for immigrants who moved between certain world regions, particularly those who immigrated from Northern Africa, Asia, and Southern Europe to richer countries. The results highlight the need in the broader migration literature for an increased focus on selection effects and on outcomes for people who chose not to migrate or who were denied entry into their planned destination country.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.013 | 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