Home › Research › Disparities
Representativeness of samples enrolled in Alzheimer's disease research centers
Miguel Arce Rentería, Taylor M Mobley, Nicole D Evangelista, Luis D Medina, Kacie D Deters, Joshua T Fox-Fuller, Lex R Minto, Justina Avila-Rieger et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2023-06-05
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
UNLABELLED: To generalize findings on the mechanisms and prognosis in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD), it is critical for ADRD research to be representative of the population. Sociodemographic and health characteristics across ethnoracial groups included in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center sample (NACC) were compared to the nationally representative Health and Retirement Study (HRS). Baseline NACC data (n = 36,639) and the weighted 2010 HRS wave (N = 52,071,840) were included. We assessed covariate balance by calculating standardized mean differences across harmonized covariates (i.e., sociodemographic, health). NACC participants were older, more educated, with worse subjective memory and hearing, but endorsed fewer depressive symptoms compared to HRS participants. While all racial and ethnic groups in NACC differed from HRS participants in the same way overall, these differences were further amplified between racial and ethnic groups. NACC participants do not represent the U.S. population in key demographic and health factors, which differed by race and ethnicity. HIGHLIGHTS: We examined selection factors included in NACC studies compared to a nationally representative sample.Selection factors included demographic and health factors and self-reported memory concerns.Results suggest that NACC participants are not representative of the U.S. population.Importantly, selection factors differed across racial and ethnic groups.Findings are suggestive of selection bias within NACC studies.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Rentería, M. A., Mobley, T. M., Evangelista, N. D., Medina, L. D., Deters, K. D., Fox-Fuller, J. T., et al. (2023). Representativeness of samples enrolled in Alzheimer's disease research centers. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12450
Vancouver
Rentería MA, Mobley TM, Evangelista ND, Medina LD, Deters KD, Fox-Fuller JT, et al. Representativeness of samples enrolled in Alzheimer's disease research centers. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2023. doi:10.1002/dad2.12450. PMID: 37287650.
BibTeX
@article{renteria2023-37287650,
author = {Rentería, Miguel Arce and Mobley, Taylor M and Evangelista, Nicole D and Medina, Luis D and Deters, Kacie D and Fox-Fuller, Joshua T and Minto, Lex R and Avila-Rieger, Justina and others},
title = {{Representativeness of samples enrolled in Alzheimer's disease research centers}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1002/dad2.12450},
pmid = {37287650},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12450}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Sociodemographic and health characteristics across ethnoracial groups included in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center sample (NACC) were compared to the nationally representative Health and Retirement Study (HRS).
- NACC participants were older, more educated, with worse subjective memory and hearing, but endorsed fewer depressive symptoms compared to HRS participants.
- While all racial and ethnic groups in NACC differed from HRS participants in the same way overall, these differences were further amplified between racial and ethnic groups.
- HIGHLIGHTS: We examined selection factors included in NACC studies compared to a nationally representative sample.Selection factors included demographic and health factors and self-reported memory concerns.Results suggest that NACC participants are not representative of the U.S. population.Importantly, selection factors differed across racial and ethnic groups.Findings are suggestive of selection bias within NACC studies.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Participants36,639
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 57/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 32 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 4 / 4 | 36,639 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 37287650) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 32 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Disparities
Also tagged “costs”
265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.