Pathways explaining racial/ethnic disparities in incident all‐cause and Alzheimer's disease dementia among older US men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Racial disparities in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and all-cause dementia (DEMENTIA) incidence may exist differentially among men and women, with unknown mechanisms. Methods: A retrospective cohort study examining all-cause and AD dementia incidence was conducted linking Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Medicare data over ≤26 years of follow-up (1988 to 2014). Cox regression and generalized structural equation models (GSEMs) were constructed among men and women ≥60 years of age at baseline (N = 4592). Outcomes included onset ages of all-cause and AD dementia, whereas the main exposures were race/ethnicity contrasts (RACE_ETHN). Potential mediators) included socio-economic status (SES), lifestyle factors (dietary quality [DIET] nutritional biomarkers [NUTR], physical activity [PA], social support [SS], alcohol [ALCOHOL], poor health [or HEALTH], poor cognitive performance [or COGN]. In addition to RACE_ETHN, the following were exogenous covariates in the GSEM and potential confounders in Cox models: age, sex, urban-rural, household size, and marital status. Results: Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) women had a higher risk of DEMENTIA versus non-Hispanic White (NHW) women in GSEM, consistent with Cox models (age-adjusted model: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10 to 1.61). The total effect of this RACE_ETHN contrast in women was explained by four main pathways: (1) RACE_ETHN→ poor cognitive performance (COGN, +) → DEMENTIA (+); (2) RACE_ETHN → SES (-) → COGN (-) → DEMENTIA (+); (3) RACE_ETHN → SES (-) → physical activity (PA, +) → COGN (-) → DEMENTIA (+); and (4) RACE_ETHN → SES (-) → DIET (+) → COGN (-) → DEMENTIA (+). A reduced AD risk in Mexican American (MA) women versus NHW women upon adjustment for SES and downstream factors (HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.80). For the non-White versus NHW contrast in incident DEMENTIA, pathways involved lower SES, directly increasing cognitive deficits (or indirectly through lifestyle factors), which then directly increases DEMENTIA . Discussion: Socioeconomic and lifestyle factors explaining disparities between NHB and NHW in dementia onset among women are important to consider for future observational and intervention studies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".