Lost in translation? Deciphering the role of language differences in the excess risk of psychosis among migrant groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Migration is a well-established risk factor for psychotic disorders, and migrant language has been proposed as a novel factor that may improve our understanding of this relationship. Our objective was to explore the association between indicators of linguistic distance and the risk of psychotic disorders among first-generation migrant groups. METHODS: Using linked health administrative data, we constructed a retrospective cohort of first-generation migrants to Ontario over a 20-year period (1992-2011). Linguistic distance of the first language was categorized using several approaches, including language family classifications, estimated acquisition time, syntax-based distance scores, and lexical-based distance scores. Incident cases of non-affective psychotic disorder were identified over a 5- to 25-year period. We used Poisson regression to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRR) for each language variable, after adjustment for knowledge of English at arrival and other factors. RESULTS: Our cohort included 1 863 803 first-generation migrants. Migrants whose first language was in a different language family than English had higher rates of psychotic disorders (IRR = 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.16), relative to those whose first language was English. Similarly, migrants in the highest quintile of linguistic distance based on lexical similarity had an elevated risk of psychotic disorder (IRR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.06-1.24). Adjustment for knowledge of English at arrival had minimal effect on observed estimates. CONCLUSION: We found some evidence that linguistic factors that impair comprehension may play a role in the excess risk of psychosis among migrant groups; however, the magnitude of effect is small and unlikely to fully explain the elevated rates of psychotic disorder across migrant groups.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".