Comparison of Disability Rates Among Older Adults in Aggregated and Separate Asian American/Pacific Islander Subpopulations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the prevalence and adjusted odds of 4 types of disability among 7 groups of older Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) subpopulations, both separately and aggregated, compared with non-Hispanic Whites. METHODS: Data were from the nationally representative 2006 American Community Survey, which included institutionalized and community-dwelling Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (n = 524), Vietnamese (n = 2357), Korean (n = 2082), Japanese (n = 3230), Filipino (n = 5109), Asian Indian (n = 2942), Chinese (n = 6034), and non-Hispanic White (n = 641 177) individuals aged 55 years and older. The weighted prevalence, population estimates, and odds ratios of 4 types of disability (functional limitations, limitations in activities of daily living, cognitive problems, and blindness or deafness) were reported for each group. RESULTS: Disability rates in older adults varied more among AAPI subpopulations than between non-Hispanic Whites and the aggregated Asian group. Asian older adults had, on average, better disability outcomes than did non-Hispanic Whites. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the strongest evidence to date that exclusion of institutionalized older adults minimizes disparities in disabilities between Asians and Whites. The aggregation of Asians into one group obscures substantial subgroup variability and fails to identify the most vulnerable groups (e.g., Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders and Vietnamese).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it