Neighbourhood-level social capital, marginalisation, and the incidence of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder in Toronto, Canada: a retrospective population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have shown mixed results regarding social capital and the risk of developing a psychotic disorder, and this has yet to be studied in North America. We sought to examine the relationship between neighbourhood-level marginalisation, social capital, and the incidence of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder in Toronto, Canada. METHODS: We used a retrospective population-based cohort to identify incident cases of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder over a 10 year period and accounted for neighbourhood-level marginalisation and a proxy indicator of neighbourhood social capital. Mixed Poisson regression models were used to estimate adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs). RESULTS: = 649 020) we identified 4841 incident cases of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. A 27% variation in incidence was observed between neighbourhoods. All marginalisation dimensions, other than ethnic concentration, were associated with incidence. Compared to areas with low social capital, areas with intermediate social capital in the second [aIRR = 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.33] and third (aIRR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.08-1.40) quintiles had elevated incidence rates after accounting for marginalisation. There was a higher risk associated with the intermediate levels of social capital (aIRR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.00-1.39) when analysed in only the females in the cohort, but the CI includes the possibility of a null effect. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of developing schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder in Toronto varies by neighbourhood and is associated with socioenvironmental exposures. Social capital was not linearly associated with risk, and risk differs by sex and social capital quintile. Future research should examine these relationships with different forms of social capital and examine how known individual-level risk factors impact these findings.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".