Ethnic Disparities in Clinical Presentation of Patients with Early‐Onset Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Early‐onset Alzheimer’s Disease (EOAD) affects patients under age 65 and may present with non‐amnestic features. Black patients are half as likely as White patients to be diagnosed despite twice as many risk factors. Ethnic disparities in EOAD have not been fully characterized. Methods We retrospectively collected data on ethnicity, level of education, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores on EOAD patients diagnosed between 2017 and 2022 at The University of Chicago Memory Center. Results Of 88 total patients, 60 (68.8%) identified as White and 28 (31.8%) identified as Black. Age at diagnosis was 57.3 ± 5.24 years in Black patients compared to 55.9 ± 5.69 years In White patients. Average time to diagnosis was longer in Black patients (5 ± 9.21 yrs.) vs White patients (3.5 ± 6.44 yrs). Black patients had lower MoCA scores than Whites at presentation (12.17 ± 6.91 vs 15.15 ± 5.92), despite similar education levels among Black vs. White patients (14.71 ± 2.30 vs 15.21 ± 3.00). Black patients more commonly displayed an amnestic profile (19 or 67.9%) than a non‐amnestic presentation (9 or 32.1%), although 2 patients (7.14%) presented with visual symptoms suggestive of posterior cortical atrophy (PCA), 5 (17.9%) patients had prominent language symptoms suggestive of logopenic primary progress aphasia (l‐PPA) and 1 (3.6%) patient had an executive presentation, suggestive of executive variant of AD (EAD). In White patients, 11 (18.3%) were diagnosed with PCA, 10 (16.7%) with EAD and 8 (13.3%) with l‐PPA. Differences were noted in the application of diagnostic tests, in that neuropsychological testing (NPT) and CSF testing were less often ordered in Black patients (NPT: 8 (29%) in Blacks vs 45 (75%) Whites, p = 0.001; CSF: 4 (14%) Blacks vs 30 (50%) Whites, p = 0.002). Conclusion In our cohort, Black patients with EOAD were on average older, more advanced, and experience longer delays and differences in diagnostic management than their White counterparts. Further work is needed to characterize the barriers to diagnosis for Black patients with EOAD and the potential differences in clinical presentations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".