MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4366815361 · doi:10.1101/2023.04.17.23288629

Too much information? Asian Americans’ preferences for incidental brain MRI findings

2023· preprint· en· W4366815361 on OpenAlexaff
Karthik Kota, Alice Dawson, Julia Papas, Victor Sotelo, Guibin Su, Meiling Li, Woowon Lee, Jaunis Estervil, Melissa D. Marquez, Shromona Sarkar, Lisa Lanza Lopez, William T. Hu

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDementiaPsychologyGerontologyMedicineStroke (engine)PerceptionOdds ratioClinical psychologyDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: South Asian (SA) and East Asian (EA) older adults represent the fastest growing group of Americans at risk for dementia, but their participation in aging and dementia research has been limited. While recruiting healthy SA older adults into a brain health study, we encountered unexpected hesitancy towards structural brain MRI analysis along with some stigmatizing attitudes related to internal locus of control (LoC) for future dementia risks. We hypothesized that support for MRI-related research was influenced by these attitudes as well as one's own MRI experience, perceived MRI safety, and concerns for one's own risks for future dementia/stroke. METHODS: We developed a brief cross-sectional survey to assess older adults' MRI experiences and perceptions, desire to learn of six incidental findings of increasing health implications, and attitudes related to dementia as well as research participation. We recruited a convenience sample of 256 respondents (74% reporting as 50+) from the New Jersey/New York City area to complete the survey, and modeled the proportional odds (P.O.) for pro-research attitudes. RESULTS: 77 SA and 84 EA respondents were analyzed with 95 non-Asian adults. White (P.O.=2.54, p=0.013) and EA (P.O.=2.14, p=0.019) respondents were both more likely than SA respondents to endorse healthy volunteers' participation in research, and the difference between White and SA respondents was mediated by the latter's greater internal LoC for dementia risks. EA respondents had more worries for future dementia/stroke than SA respondents (p=0.006), but still shared SA respondents' low desire to learn of incidental MRI findings. DISCUSSION: SA and EA older adults had different attitudes towards future dementia/stroke risks, but shared a low desire to learn of incidental MRI findings. A culturally-appropriate protocol to disclose incidental MRI findings may improve SA and EA participation in brain health research.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→