Using community-based geographical information system (GIS) to recruit older Asian Americans in an Alzheimer’s disease study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to show the usefulness of incorporating a community-based geographical information system (GIS) in recruiting research participants for the Asian Cohort for Alzheimer's Disease (ACAD) study for using the subgroup of Korean American (KA) older adults. The ACAD study is the first large study in the USA and Canada focusing on the recruitment of Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese older adults to address the issues of under-representation of Asian Americans in clinical research. METHODS: To promote clinical research participation of racial/ethnic minority older adults with and without dementia, we used GIS by collaborating with community members to delineate boundaries for geographical clusters and enclaves of church and senior networks, and KA serving ethnic clinics. In addition, we used socioeconomic data identified as recruitment factors unique to KA older adults which was analysed for developing recruitment strategies. RESULTS: GIS maps show a visualisation of the heterogeneity of the sociodemographic characteristics and the resources of faith-based organisations and KA serving local clinics. We addressed these factors that disproportionately affect participation in clinical research and successfully recruited the intended participants (N=60) in the proposed period. DISCUSSION: Using GIS maps to locate KA provided innovative inroads to successful research outreach efforts for a pilot study that may be expanded to other underserved populations across the USA in the future. We will use this tool subsequently on a large-scale clinical genetic epidemiology study. POLICY IMPLICATION: This approach responds to the call from the National Institute on Aging to develop strategies to improve the health status of older adults in diverse populations. Our study will offer a practical guidance to health researchers and policymakers in identifying understudied and hard-to-reach specific Asian American populations for clinical studies or initiatives. This would further contribute in reducing the health and research disparity gaps among older minority populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".