MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403915947 · doi:10.1016/j.dialog.2024.100197

The association of combinations of social factors and SARs-CoV-2 infection: A retrospective population-based cohort study in Ontario, 2020–2021

2024· article· en· W4403915947 on OpenAlexafffundabout
M. Fitzgerald, Steven Hawken, Peter Tanuseputro, Lisa Boucher, William Petrcich, Martin Wellman, Colleen Webber, Esther S. Shoemaker, Robin Ducharme, Simone Dahrouge, Daniel T. Myran, Ahmed M. Bayoumi, Susitha Wanigaratne, Gary Bloch, David Ponka, Brendan T. Smith, Aïsha Lofters, Austin Zygmunt, Krystal Kehoe MacLeod, Luke Turcotte, Beate Sander, Michelle Howard, Sarah Funnell, Jennifer Rayner, Sureya Ibrahim, Claire Kendall

Post-publication record

OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDialogues in Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsRegent Park Community Health CentreAccess Alliance Multicultural Health and Community ServicesQueen's UniversityBrock UniversityToronto General HospitalMcMaster UniversityPublic Health OntarioOttawa HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of OttawaBruyère
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyCohortAssociation (psychology)DemographyMedicineSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Cohort studyPopulationVirologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Environmental healthInternal medicinePsychologySociologyDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted and exacerbated health inequities worldwide. While several studies have examined the impact of individual social factors on COVID infection, our objective was to examine how interactions of social factors were associated with the risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the first two years of the pandemic. Study design and setting: We conducted an observational cohort study using linked health administrative data for Ontarians tested for SARS-CoV-2 between January 1st, 2020, and December 31st, 2021. We constructed multivariable models to examine the association between SARS-CoV-2 positivity and key variables including immigration status (immigrants vs. other Ontarians), and neighbourhood variables for household size, income, essential worker status, and visible minority status. We report main and interaction effects using odds ratios and predicted probabilities, with age and sex controlled in all models. Results: Of 6,575,523 Ontarians in the cohort, 88.5 % tested negative, and 11.5 % tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. In all models, immigrants and those living in neighbourhoods with large average household sizes had greater odds of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. The strength of these associations increased with increasing levels of neighbourhood marginalization for income, essential worker proportion and visible minority proportion. We observed little change in the probability of testing positive across neighbourhood income quintiles among other Ontarians who live in neighbourhoods with smaller households, but a large change in probability among other Ontarians who live in neighbourhoods with larger households. Conclusion: Our study found that SARS-CoV-2 positivity was greater among people with certain combinations of social factors, but in all cases the probability of testing positive was consistently greater for immigrants than for other Ontarians. Examining interactions of social factors can provide a more nuanced and more comprehensive understanding of health inequity than examining factors separately.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialogues in HealthSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207