Can lifestyle factors explain racial and ethnic inequalities in all-cause mortality among US adults?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic inequalities in all-cause mortality exist, and individual-level lifestyle factors have been proposed to contribute to these inequalities. In this study, we evaluate the extent to which the association between race and ethnicity and all-cause mortality can be explained by differences in the exposure and vulnerability to harmful effects of different lifestyle factors. METHODS: The 1997-2014 cross-sectional, annual US National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) linked to the 2015 National Death Index was used. NHIS reported on race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic/Latinx), lifestyle factors (alcohol use, smoking, body mass index, physical activity), and covariates (sex, age, education, marital status, survey year). Causal mediation using an additive hazard and marginal structural approach was used. RESULTS: 465,073 adults (18-85 years) were followed 8.9 years (SD: 5.3); 49,804 deaths were observed. Relative to White adults, Black adults experienced 21.7 (men; 95%CI: 19.9, 23.5) and 11.5 (women; 95%CI: 10.1, 12.9) additional deaths per 10,000 person-years whereas Hispanic/Latinx women experienced 9.3 (95%CI: 8.1, 10.5) fewer deaths per 10,000 person-years; no statistically significant differences were identified between White and Hispanic/Latinx men. Notably, these differences in mortality were partially explained by both differential exposure and differential vulnerability to the lifestyle factors among Black women, while different effects of individual lifestyle factors canceled each other out among Black men and Hispanic/Latinx women. CONCLUSIONS: Lifestyle factors provide some explanation for racial and ethnic inequalities in all-cause mortality. Greater attention to structural, life course, healthcare, and other factors is needed to understand determinants of inequalities in mortality and to advance health equity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".