Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 minor 35 references

What does ethnic density represent? Spatial co-occurrence networks of a widely used contextual measure using harmonised UK small-area census data

T0 review · 3 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-26 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Ethnic density percentages do not represent equivalent neighbourhood contexts across different ethnic groups.

desk verdict The paper uses MGM on UK census data to show ethnic density links to different co-occurring factors by group, but the fixed 32-node choice needs justification to support the non-comparability claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.19087 v1 pith:QDO2AMQ7 submitted 2026-06-17 stat.ME

Joseph Lam This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME
keywords ethnicdensitymixedgraphicalmodelsspatialco-occurrenceUKcensuscontextualmeasureshealthgeographyneighbourhoodeffects
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tests whether a given percentage of ethnic density captures the same local context no matter which ethnic group is measured. It builds separate mixed graphical models for eight ethnic-density targets on harmonised UK small-area census records, each model linking the density target to 32 other variables that describe birthplace, religion, household structure and socioeconomic conditions. The retained edges show that the strongest co-occurring factors differ sharply by group, for instance Asian density with Middle East or Asia birthplace share and Indian density with Hindu share. Because health studies routinely treat these percentages as interchangeable exposures, the finding implies that models may be adjusting for or estimating effects of different underlying neighbourhood bundles.

What carries the argument

Target-specific mixed graphical models that estimate which of 32 contextual nodes retain an edge with each ethnic-density percentage after penalised estimation.

What would settle it

A re-analysis in which health-outcome regressions using ethnic density yield statistically indistinguishable coefficients across groups once the model explicitly includes the group-specific co-occurring variables identified by the networks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In UK-wide mixed graphical models, the strongest retained edges between each ethnic-density target and its neighbours differed across groups: Asian density linked most strongly with Middle East/Asia-born share, Indian density with Hindu share, Pakistani density with Muslim share, Black density with Africa-born share, and White density with Middle East/Asia-born share. England-only spatial networks remained highly autocorrelated, yet 64 to 96 percent of the original target-node edges persisted after residualising against region and local spatial lag. The analysis concludes that equivalent percentage values are not necessarily comparable across ethnic groups.

Load-bearing premise

The 32 chosen nodes are enough to reveal whether each ethnic-density percentage stands for a distinct bundle of neighbourhood conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Estimands that treat ethnic density as a single scalar require group-specific definitions or additional controls for the differing co-located factors.
  • Adjustment sets in urban health studies cannot assume that a 20 percent density of one group is interchangeable with 20 percent of another.
  • Interpretation of any bundled percentage measure, such as poverty rate or foreign-born share, should check whether its meaning shifts across subpopulations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Researchers could derive adjusted density measures by subtracting the group-specific co-occurring shares before using the variable in regression.
  • The same non-comparability may appear in other countries' census data whenever migration, religion and household patterns cluster differently by ethnicity.
  • Studies that pool ethnic-density effects across groups may be averaging distinct contextual exposures rather than estimating a common effect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that ethnic density does not function as a single comparable contextual scalar across ethnic groups. Using harmonised UK census data on 239,023 small areas, target-specific mixed graphical models (MGMs) with 32 nodes each reveal group-specific strongest retained edges (Asian density–Middle East/Asia-born 0.59; Indian density–Hindu 0.55; Pakistani density–Muslim 0.47; etc.). England-only spatial analyses report high Global Moran's I (0.57–0.90) and 64.3–96.4% persistence of target-node edges after residualisation against region and k-nearest-neighbour spatial lag (k=8). The conclusion is that equivalent percentages are not necessarily comparable, with implications for estimand definition and adjustment in urban health research.

Significance. If the central claim holds after methodological clarification, the result would be significant for epidemiology and health geography: it would demonstrate that bundled contextual measures encode distinct co-occurrence structures, requiring revised adjustment strategies and caution in cross-group comparisons. The analysis draws strength from its scale (239k complete cases on harmonised census data) and appropriate use of mixed graphical models for mixed variable types, providing a reproducible exploratory framework for validating contextual exposures.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods (target-specific MGM construction)] Methods (target-specific MGM construction): The manuscript uses a fixed set of 32 nodes per target-specific MGM drawn from birthplace, religion, household structure and socioeconomic conditions but provides no enumeration of the exact variables, no justification for the count of 32, and no sensitivity analyses adding or removing nodes. This is load-bearing for the non-comparability claim because, as the stress-test note observes, observed differences in retained edges (e.g., 0.59 vs 0.55) could be artifacts of the particular node pool rather than evidence that the density percentages themselves represent distinct contexts.
  2. [Results (UK-wide MGM)] Results (UK-wide MGM): The reported edge strengths (0.59, 0.55, 0.47, 0.42, 0.35, 0.23) are presented without any information on the regularisation procedure, model-selection criterion, penalty parameter choice, or multiple-testing correction. These unshown steps are required to interpret which edges are 'strongest retained' and therefore to support the claim that the measures are non-comparable.
  3. [Methods (England-only spatial analyses)] Methods (England-only spatial analyses): The choice of k=8 for nearest-neighbour spatial lag and the exact residualisation against English region plus local lag are stated without justification or sensitivity checks; the reported persistence range (64.3%–96.4%) therefore cannot be assessed for robustness to these modelling decisions.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrase 'harmonised Unified UK Census Data release' should include a citation or persistent identifier to the exact data product to support reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for these detailed and constructive comments, which highlight areas where additional methodological transparency will strengthen the paper. We agree that the claims regarding non-comparability of ethnic density measures require clearer documentation of variable selection, estimation procedures, and robustness checks. We will revise the manuscript to address each point and provide the requested details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Methods (target-specific MGM construction): The manuscript uses a fixed set of 32 nodes per target-specific MGM drawn from birthplace, religion, household structure and socioeconomic conditions but provides no enumeration of the exact variables, no justification for the count of 32, and no sensitivity analyses adding or removing nodes. This is load-bearing for the non-comparability claim because, as the stress-test note observes, observed differences in retained edges (e.g., 0.59 vs 0.55) could be artifacts of the particular node pool rather than evidence that the density percentages themselves represent distinct contexts.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit enumeration of the 32 nodes, justification for their number, and sensitivity analyses were omitted from the submitted manuscript. The nodes were drawn from the harmonised Unified UK Census Data to represent the four domains listed in the abstract (birthplace, religion, household structure, and socioeconomic conditions). In the revised version we will add a supplementary table listing all 32 variables with their exact census definitions and sources. We will also insert a methods paragraph justifying the node count as striking a balance between domain coverage and computational stability given n=239k, and we will report sensitivity analyses that re-estimate the MGMs after systematically dropping or adding nodes from each domain to test whether the strongest target-neighbour edges remain stable. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Results (UK-wide MGM): The reported edge strengths (0.59, 0.55, 0.47, 0.42, 0.35, 0.23) are presented without any information on the regularisation procedure, model-selection criterion, penalty parameter choice, or multiple-testing correction. These unshown steps are required to interpret which edges are 'strongest retained' and therefore to support the claim that the measures are non-comparable.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the submitted manuscript did not describe the regularisation procedure, model-selection criterion, or penalty parameter. In the revision we will expand the methods section to specify the exact MGM implementation details used, including the regularisation approach, the criterion for selecting the penalty parameter, and confirmation that no separate multiple-testing correction was applied beyond the regularisation itself. These additions will allow readers to evaluate which edges qualify as 'strongest retained' and thereby support the non-comparability interpretation. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Methods (England-only spatial analyses): The choice of k=8 for nearest-neighbour spatial lag and the exact residualisation against English region plus local lag are stated without justification or sensitivity checks; the reported persistence range (64.3%–96.4%) therefore cannot be assessed for robustness to these modelling decisions.

    Authors: We agree that justification for k=8 and the precise residualisation steps, together with sensitivity checks, were not provided. The choice of k=8 follows standard practice for capturing local spatial structure in UK Output Area analyses. In the revised manuscript we will add a methods paragraph with this rationale and supporting references, and we will report sensitivity analyses using alternative neighbourhood definitions (k=4 and k=12) and alternative residualisation specifications to demonstrate that the reported persistence range is robust to these choices. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; analysis is self-contained

full rationale

The paper applies standard mixed graphical models and spatial autocorrelation methods (MGM, LISA, k-NN networks) to external harmonised UK census data. The reported edge strengths and spatial autocorrelations are direct outputs of these models applied to the 32-node feature sets; no step renames a fitted parameter as a prediction, defines a target in terms of its own output, or relies on a load-bearing self-citation whose validity is internal to the authors. The central claim of non-comparability follows from the observed differences in retained edges across target-specific models, which remain independent of any author-constructed inputs or prior results by the same team.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that the chosen 32 nodes capture the relevant co-occurring factors; the k=8 spatial lag parameter is a free modelling choice.

free parameters (1)
  • k for k-nearest-neighbour spatial lag = 8
    Chosen value of 8 used to construct spatial lag in England-only residual networks.
assumptions (2)
  • standard math Mixed graphical models identify conditional dependencies among mixed continuous and categorical variables in the census data.
    Invoked for the UK-wide target-specific models with 32 nodes.
  • domain assumption The 32 nodes (birthplace, religion, household structure, socioeconomic conditions) are sufficient to characterise distinct contextual meanings of ethnic density.
    Basis for interpreting differences in strongest edges as evidence of non-comparability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What does ethnic density represent? Spatial co-occurrence networks of a widely used contextual measure using harmonised UK small-area census data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QDO2AMQ7

@misc{pith2026260619087,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What does ethnic density represent? Spatial co-occurrence networks of a widely used contextual measure using harmonised UK small-area census data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QDO2AMQ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.19087}
}
read the original abstract

Ethnic density is widely used in epidemiology and health geography as a contextual exposure, yet it is rarely examined as a measurement problem in its own right. Equivalent percentage values may represent different neighbourhood contexts across groups and places, particularly where migration, religion, language, household structure and socioeconomic conditions are spatially co-located. Using the harmonised Unified UK Census Data release, I analysed 239,023 small-area census data to examine ethnic density as an exploratory contextual co-occurrence construct. I estimated UK-wide mixed graphical models (MGM) for eight ethnic-density targets using 239,019 complete cases and 32 nodes per target-specific model. England-only spatial analyses then used k-nearest-neighbour Output Area centroids (k = 8) to estimate LISA and spatially adjusted residual networks. Ethnic density did not behave as a single contextual scalar. In the UK-wide MGM, the strongest retained target-neighbour edges differed across groups. Asian density was linked most strongly with Middle East/Asia-born share (0.59), Indian density with Hindu share (0.55), Pakistani density with Muslim share (0.47), Bangladeshi density with Muslim share (0.23), Black density with Africa-born share (0.42), and White density with Middle East/Asia-born share (0.35). England-only ethnic-density measures were strongly spatially autocorrelated, with Global Moran's I ranging from 0.57 for Mixed share to 0.90 for White share. After residualising against English region and local spatial lag, 64.3% to 96.4% of original target-node edges persisted across ethnic-density networks. Equivalent percentage values are not necessarily comparable across ethnic groups. This has implications for estimand definition, adjustment strategies, and the interpretation of ethnic density and other bundled contextual measures in urban health research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ethnic density effects on health and experienced racism among Caribbean people in the US and England: A cross-national comparison

    Becares L, Nazroo J, Jackson J, Heuvelman H. Ethnic density effects on health and experienced racism among Caribbean people in the US and England: A cross-national comparison. SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE. 2012 Dec;75(12):2107–15. Located at: WOS:000312757800007. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.046

    work page doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.046 2012

  2. [2]

    The ethnic density effect as a contextual influence in ecological disease models: Establishing its quantitative expression

    Congdon P. The ethnic density effect as a contextual influence in ecological disease models: Establishing its quantitative expression. Health & Place. 2023 Sep 1;83:103083. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2023.103083

    work page doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2023.103083 2023

  3. [3]

    Ethnic density effects on maternal and infant health in the Millennium Cohort Study

    Pickett KE, Shaw RJ, Atkin K, Kiernan KE, Wilkinson RG. Ethnic density effects on maternal and infant health in the Millennium Cohort Study. Social Science & Medicine. 2009 Nov 1;69(10):1476–83. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.08.031

    work page doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.08.031 2009

  4. [4]

    The ethnic density effect in psychosis: a systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis

    Baker SJ, Jackson M, Jongsma H, Saville CWN. The ethnic density effect in psychosis: a systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2021 Dec;219(6):632–43. doi:10.1192/bjp.2021.96 PubMed PMID: 35048877; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8636614

    work page doi:10.1192/bjp.2021.96 2021

  5. [5]

    Incidence of schizophrenia in ethnic minorities in London: ecological study into interactions with environment

    Boydell J, van Os J, McKenzie K, Allardyce J, Goel R, McCreadie RG, et al. Incidence of schizophrenia in ethnic minorities in London: ecological study into interactions with environment. BMJ. 2001;323(7325):1336–8

    2001

  6. [6]

    Impact of ethnic density on adult mental disorders: narrative review

    Shaw RJ, Atkin K, Bécares L, Albor CB, Stafford M, Kiernan KE, et al. Impact of ethnic density on adult mental disorders: narrative review. Br J Psychiatry. 2012 Jul;201(1):11–9. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.110.083675 PubMed PMID: 22753852

    work page doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.110.083675 2012

  7. [7]

    Ethnic density effects for adult mental health: systematic review and meta-analysis of international studies

    Bécares L, Dewey ME, Das-Munshi J. Ethnic density effects for adult mental health: systematic review and meta-analysis of international studies. Psychol Med. 2018 Sep;48(12):2054–72. doi:10.1017/S0033291717003580 PubMed PMID: 29239292; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6076993

    work page doi:10.1017/s0033291717003580 2018

  8. [8]

    Das-Munshi J, Schofield P, Bhavsar V, Chang CK, Dewey ME, Morgan C, et al. Ethnic density and other neighbourhood associations for mortality in severe mental illness: a retrospective cohort study with multi-level analysis from an urbanised and ethnically diverse location in the UK. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;Comment in: Lancet Psychiatry. 2019 Jun;6(6):456-4...

    work page doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(19)30126-9 2019

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Does the ethnic density effect extend to obesity? A cross-sectional study of 415 166 adults in east London

    Sutaria S, Mathur R, Hull SA. Does the ethnic density effect extend to obesity? A cross-sectional study of 415 166 adults in east London. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e024779. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024779

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Ethnic density effects on physical morbidity, mortality, and health behaviors: a systematic review of the literature

    Bécares L, Shaw R, Nazroo J, Stafford M, Albor C, Atkin K, et al. Ethnic density effects on physical morbidity, mortality, and health behaviors: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Public Health. 2012 Dec;102(12):e33-66. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300832 PubMed PMID: 230785...

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    Ethnic density and cancer: A review of the evidence

    Fang CY, Tseng M. Ethnic density and cancer: A review of the evidence. Cancer. 2018 May 1;124(9):1877–903. doi:10.1002/cncr.31177

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    The ethnic density effect on alcohol use among ethnic minority people in the UK

    Bécares L, Nazroo J, Stafford M. The ethnic density effect on alcohol use among ethnic minority people in the UK. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2011 Jan 1;65(1):20–5. doi:10.1136/jech.2009.087114 PubMed PMID: 19703909

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    Ethnic density effects on birth outcomes and maternal smoking during pregnancy in the US linked birth and infant death data set

    Shaw RJ, Pickett KE, Wilkinson RG. Ethnic density effects on birth outcomes and maternal smoking during pregnancy in the US linked birth and infant death data set. Am J Public Health. 2010 Apr;100(4):707–

    2010

  6. [14]

    doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.167114 PubMed PMID: 20167891; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2836344

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    Investigating neighborhood and area effects on health

    Diez Roux AV. Investigating neighborhood and area effects on health. Am J Public Health. 2001 Nov;91(11):1783–9. doi:10.2105/ajph.91.11.1783 PubMed PMID: 11684601; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1446876

    2001 doi

  8. [16]

    Overadjustment bias and unnecessary adjustment in epidemiologic studies

    Schisterman EF, Cole SR, Platt RW. Overadjustment bias and unnecessary adjustment in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology. 2009 Jul;20(4):488–95. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181a819a1 PubMed PMID: 19525685; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2744485

    2009 doi

  9. [17]

    Eliminating Ambiguous Treatment Effects Using Estimands

    Kahan BC, Cro S, Li F, Harhay MO. Eliminating Ambiguous Treatment Effects Using Estimands. Am J Epidemiol. 2023 Jun 2;192(6):987–94. doi:10.1093/aje/kwad036

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    [cited 2026 Mar 21]

    Unified UK Census Data (2021/2) - Geographic Data Service [Internet]. [cited 2026 Mar 21]. Available from: https://data.geods.ac.uk/dataset/unified-uk-census-data

    2021

  11. [19]

    A unified dataset of UK census variables for small areas: Harmonised data tables from the 2021 England, Wales, and Northern Ireland censuses and the 2022 Scotland census

    Goodwin O, Singleton A. A unified dataset of UK census variables for small areas: Harmonised data tables from the 2021 England, Wales, and Northern Ireland censuses and the 2022 Scotland census. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science. 2026 Feb 28;23998083...

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Place effects on health: how can we conceptualise, operationalise and measure them? Social Science & Medicine

    Macintyre S, Ellaway A, Cummins S. Place effects on health: how can we conceptualise, operationalise and measure them? Social Science & Medicine. 2002 Jul 1;Selected papers from the 9th International Symposium on Medical G eography55(1):125–39. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00214-3

    2002 doi

  13. [21]

    Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance

    Markevych I, Schoierer J, Hartig T, Chudnovsky A, Hystad P, Dzhambov AM, et al. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ Res. 2017 Oct;158:301–17. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.028 PubMed PMID: 28672128

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    [cited 2026 Jun 15]

    mgm: Estimating Time-Varying Mixed Graphical Models in High-Dimensional Data | Journal of Statistical Software [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jun 15]. Available from: https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v093i08

    2026

  15. [23]

    R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Internet]

    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2026. Available from: https://www.R-project.org

    2026

  16. [24]

    spdep: Spatial Dependence: Weighting Schemes, Statistics [Internet]

    Bivand R, Altman M, Anselin L, Assunção R, Bera A, Berke O, et al. spdep: Spatial Dependence: Weighting Schemes, Statistics [Internet]. 2026 [cited 2026 Jun 15]. Available from: https://cran.r- project.org/web/packages/spdep/index.html

    2026

  17. [25]

    qgraph: Network Visualizations of Relationships in Psychometric Data

    Epskamp S, Cramer AOJ, Waldorp LJ, Schmittmann VD, Borsboom D. qgraph: Network Visualizations of Relationships in Psychometric Data. Journal of Statistical Software. 2012 May 24;48:1–18. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i04

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis [Internet]

    Hadley Wickham. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis [Internet]. Springer-Verlag New York

  19. [27]

    Available from: https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org

  20. [28]

    Jo-Lam/EthnicDensityR [R] [Internet]

    Lam J. Jo-Lam/EthnicDensityR [R] [Internet]. 2026 [cited 2026 Jun 16]. Available from: https://github.com/Jo-Lam/EthnicDensityR

    2026

  21. [29]

    Migration-related inequalities in loneliness across age groups: a cross-national comparative study in Europe

    Delaruelle K. Migration-related inequalities in loneliness across age groups: a cross-national comparative study in Europe. Eur J Ageing. 2023 Aug 23;20(1):35. doi:10.1007/s10433-023-00782-x

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Tackling inequalities: a partnership between mental health services and black faith communities

    Codjoe L, Barber S, Thornicroft G. Tackling inequalities: a partnership between mental health services and black faith communities. J Ment Health. 2019 Jun;28(3):225–8. doi:10.1080/09638237.2019.1608933 PubMed PMID: 31074678

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Access to mental health treatment by English language proficiency and race/ethnicity

    Sentell T, Shumway M, Snowden L. Access to mental health treatment by English language proficiency and race/ethnicity. J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Nov;22 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):289–93. doi:10.1007/s11606- 007-0345-7 PubMed PMID: 17957413; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2150610

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    The (mis)estimation of neighborhood effects: causal inference for a practicable social epidemiology

    Oakes JM. The (mis)estimation of neighborhood effects: causal inference for a practicable social epidemiology. Soc Sci Med. 2004 May;58(10):1929–52. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.08.004 PubMed PMID: 15020009

    2004 doi

  25. [33]

    Understanding the excess psychosis risk in ethnic minorities: the impact of structure and identity

    Jongsma HE, Karlsen S, Kirkbride JB, Jones PB. Understanding the excess psychosis risk in ethnic minorities: the impact of structure and identity. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2021 Nov 1;56(11):1913–

    2021

  26. [34]

    doi:10.1007/s00127-021-02042-8

    doi

  27. [35]

    How is ethnicity reported, described, and analysed in health research in the UK? A bibliographical review and focus group discussions with young refugees

    Lam J, Aldridge R, Blackburn R, Harron K. How is ethnicity reported, described, and analysed in health research in the UK? A bibliographical review and focus group discussions with young refugees. BMC Public Health. 2023 Oct 17;23(1):2025. doi:10.1186/s12889-023-16947-3 Data s...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 26, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.