Can Survival Bias Explain the Age Attenuation of Racial Inequalities in Stroke Incidence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In middle age, stroke incidence is higher among black than white Americans. For unknown reasons, this inequality decreases and reverses with age. We conducted simulations to evaluate whether selective survival could account for observed age patterning of black-white stroke inequalities. METHODS: We simulated birth cohorts of 20,000 blacks and 20,000 whites with survival distributions based on US life tables for the 1919-1921 birth cohort. We generated stroke incidence rates for ages 45-94 years using Reasons for Geographic and Racial Disparities in Stroke (REGARDS) study rates for whites and setting the effect of black race on stroke to incidence rate difference (IRD) = 20/10,000 person-years at all ages, the inequality observed at younger ages in REGARDS. We compared observed age-specific stroke incidence across scenarios, varying effects of U, representing unobserved factors influencing mortality and stroke risk. RESULTS: Despite a constant adverse effect of black race on stroke risk, the observed black-white inequality in stroke incidence attenuated at older age. When the hazard ratio for U on stroke was 1.5 for both blacks and whites, but U only directly influenced mortality for blacks (hazard ratio for U on mortality =1.5 for blacks; 1.0 for whites), stroke incidence rates in late life were lower among blacks (average observed IRD = -43/10,000 person-years at ages 85-94 years versus causal IRD = 20/10,000 person-years) and mirrored patterns observed in REGARDS. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively moderate unmeasured common cause of stroke and survival could fully account for observed age attenuation of racial inequalities in stroke.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".