Asian Cohort for Alzheimer's Disease (ACAD) pilot study on genetic and non‐genetic risk factors for Alzheimer's disease among Asian Americans and Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Clinical research in Alzheimer's disease (AD) lacks cohort diversity despite being a global health crisis. The Asian Cohort for Alzheimer's Disease (ACAD) was formed to address underrepresentation of Asians in research, and limited understanding of how genetics and non-genetic/lifestyle factors impact this multi-ethnic population. METHODS: The ACAD started fully recruiting in October 2021 with one central coordination site, eight recruitment sites, and two analysis sites. We developed a comprehensive study protocol for outreach and recruitment, an extensive data collection packet, and a centralized data management system, in English, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese. RESULTS: ACAD has recruited 606 participants with an additional 900 expressing interest in enrollment since program inception. DISCUSSION: ACAD's traction indicates the feasibility of recruiting Asians for clinical research to enhance understanding of AD risk factors. ACAD will recruit > 5000 participants to identify genetic and non-genetic/lifestyle AD risk factors, establish blood biomarker levels for AD diagnosis, and facilitate clinical trial readiness. HIGHLIGHTS: The Asian Cohort for Alzheimer's Disease (ACAD) promotes awareness of under-investment in clinical research for Asians. We are recruiting Asian Americans and Canadians for novel insights into Alzheimer's disease. We describe culturally appropriate recruitment strategies and data collection protocol. ACAD addresses challenges of recruitment from heterogeneous Asian subcommunities. We aim to implement a successful recruitment program that enrolls across three Asian subcommunities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".