A systematic review/meta‐analysis of prevalence and incidence rates illustrates systemic underrepresentation of individuals racialized as Asian and/or Asian‐American in ADRD research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD) prevalence, incidence rate, and risk factors in individuals racialized as Asian and/or Asian-American and assess sample representation. Prevalence, incidence rate, risk factors, and heterogeneity of samples were assessed. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted, generating pooled estimates. Of 920 records across 14 databases, 45 studies were included. Individuals racialized as Asian and/or Asian-American were mainly from Eastern and Southern Asia, had higher education, and constituted a smaller sample relative to non-Hispanic white cohorts. The average prevalence was 10.9%, ranging from 0.4% to 46%. The average incidence rate was 20.03 (12.01-33.8) per 1000 person-years with a range of 75.19-13.59 (12.89-14.33). Risk factors included physiological, genetic, psychological, behavioral, and social factors. This review underscores the systemic underrepresentation of individuals racialized as Asian and/or Asian-American in ADRD research and the need for inclusive approaches accounting for culture, language, and immigration status. HIGHLIGHTS: There is considerable heterogeneity in the prevalence of ADRD among studies of Asian-Americans. There is limited data on group-specific risk factors for ADRD among Asian-Americans. The average prevalence of (ADRD) among Asian-Americans was found to be 7.4%, with a wide range from 0.5% to 46%.
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 | 0.040 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".