Impact of gender on the willingness to participate in clinical trials and undergo related procedures in individuals from an Alzheimer’s prevention research cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there is growing evidence of the association between gender and early diagnosis of preclinical Alzheimer's disease, little attention has been given to the enrolment ratio of men and women in clinical trials and data reporting. METHODS: This study aims to analyze gender differences in sociodemographic factors associated with the willingness to participate in clinical trials and undergo specific procedures in the context of an Alzheimer's disease prevention research cohort. 2544 cognitively unimpaired participants from the ALFA parent cohort (age 45-75 years) of the Barcelonaβeta Brain Research Center were contacted through a structured phone call to determine their willingness to participate in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials and undergo trial-related procedures (magnetic resonance imaging, lumbar puncture, positron emission tomography, and cognitive assessment). Sociodemographic data on education, occupational attainment, civil and caregiver status were gathered. Stepwise logistic regression models were performed in order to study the interaction between gender and sociodemographic factors in the willingness to participate in clinical trials and to undergo clinical trial-related procedures. RESULTS: 1,606 out of the 2,544 participants were women (63.1%). Women were significantly younger and had lower educational attainment compared with men. In addition, women were more likely to be caregivers, single and unemployed. Women showed a significantly lower willingness than men to participate in a clinical trial (p = 0.003) and to undergo a lumbar puncture (p < 0.001). Single women were less willing to participate in clinical trials than single men (p = 0.041). Regarding clinical trial-related procedures, women with higher years of education were significantly less willing to undergo a lumbar puncture (p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: We found gender differences regarding the sociodemographic factors that predict the willingness to participate in clinical trials and to undergo clinical trial-related procedures. Our results highlight the urgent need to design recruitment strategies accounting for gender-related factors, particularly those related to marital status and education.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.207 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".