MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205753436 · doi:10.1002/alz.054471

Developing best practices for outreach for the Asian Cohort for Alzheimer’s Disease (ACAD) study

2021· article· en· W4205753436 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wai Haung Yu, Marian Tzuang, Carlos Thomas, Briana Vogel, Anna T. Lu, Haeok Lee, Tiffany W. Chow, Gyungah Jun, Weixin Wang, Van Ta Park

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachCommunity engagementHealth equityGerontologyCohortCommunity-based participatory researchEthnic groupParticipatory action researchMedicinePublic relationsPolitical scienceSociologyPublic healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a leading cause of death worldwide. Despite the global impact, clinical research in AD and, in particular, clinical trials, biomarker and genome‐wide association studies are underrepresented for racial/ethnic minorities such as Asian Americans and Asian Canadians (ASAC). The Asian Cohort for Alzheimer’s Disease (ACAD) is the first large AD cohort for ASAC to address this disparity, building on best practices in community recruitment and outreach strategies with the goal of identifying genetic and non‐genetic risk factors of AD in populations of Asian descent. ACAD will include individuals of Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese ancestry, representing the first multi‐cultural Asian cohort analysis for AD. Method Community‐Based Participatory Research (CBPR) principles are embedded through all activities as a fundamental strategy to increase research participant engagement of ASAC. CBPR engages the community in all phases of research (i.e., recruitment; resource sharing; study design; data interpretation) as a collaborative process between the community and researchers that leverages each other’s strengths/assets, and requires commitment to sustainability. ACAD’s Recruitment and Outreach Workgroup aims to: a) coordinate and monitor recruitment activities across all 8 recruiting sites in the US and Canada; b) develop and disseminate recruitment and community outreach/education material; c) work with ACAD’s community advisory board (CAB) to address community partner needs; d) work with AD and Asian community partners; and e) develop best practices for community outreach in Asian and immigrant populations. Result We have gathered local/regional/national leaders representing the three target ASAC cultural groups (Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese) of ACAD as our CAB. Four significant activities thus far include: curation of information for public use; translation of ACAD educational/outreach materials; development and dissemination of social media information; and, identifying outreach and enrollment metrics as enduring documents for the research and community stakeholders. Conclusion The overarching goal of ACAD is to include this underserved and underrepresented group, reducing health disparities, while increasing our knowledge about the risk of AD among ASAC. Our multifaceted outreach and recruitment strategies will help to optimize ACAD’s success in recruitment and engagement with the ASAC community.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.279
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.162
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2790.162
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0080.013
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.683
GPT teacher head0.649
Teacher spread0.035 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207