Willingness to Be a Brain Donor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Racial and ethnic groups are under-represented among research subjects who assent to brain donation in Alzheimer disease research studies. There has been little research on this important topic. Although there are some studies that have investigated the barriers to brain donation among African American study volunteers, there is no known research on the factors that influence whether or not Asians or Latinos are willing to donate their brains for research. METHODS: African American, Caucasian, Asian, and Latino research volunteers were surveyed at 15 Alzheimer Disease Centers to identify predictors of willingness to assent to brain donation. RESULTS: Positive predictors included older age, Latino ethnicity, understanding of how the brain is used by researchers, and understanding of what participants need to do to ensure that their brain will be donated. Negative predictors included African/African American race, belief that the body should remain whole at burial, and concern that researchers might not be respectful of the body during autopsy. DISCUSSION: The predictive factors identified in this study may be useful for researchers seeking to increase participation of diverse ethnic groups in brain donation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".