A MOBILE CLINIC STUDY ON BRAIN HEALTH IN OLDER ADULTS IN A RURAL, SOCIOECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED COUNTY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective This collaborative pilot project assessed the feasibility of enrolling 50 older adults from underrepresented populations in Robeson County, North Carolina (NC), considered a racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged area. Methods The study protocol, adapted from the Alzheimer’s Gut Microbiome Project, was modified to fit local cultural contexts with input from community and local academic partners. The Lumbee Tribe of NC, headquartered in Robeson County, and its Tribal IRB endorsed the project and community-informed recruitment materials. Participants were recruited through the NC Registry for Brain Health, community-based referrals, and local meetings. A mobile clinic facilitated study visits. After consenting, participants underwent immediate fasting glucose and cholesterol testing via finger prick and biomarker collection through venipuncture. They completed a Montreal cognitive assessment and answered demographics, lifestyle, medical conditions, environmental exposures, and diet questionnaires. Instructions for home stool sample collection and shipment were provided. A nurse then reviewed participants’ physical measures, offering health counseling and resources. Participants received a printed summary of most study results except those from venipuncture, which were sent to the lab. Compensation with merchant cards was provided after shipment of stool samples. Results Fifty-seven individuals expressed interest; nine declined participation, two were ineligible, and five are pending the visit. To date, we have 41 people enrolled, nearly all recruited through community outreach. Discussion This study demonstrated the feasibility of enrolling older adults in research from a rural, underserved area. The strong community-academic engagement, including endorsement from the Lumbee Tribe and using a local mobile clinic, was key to the recruitment process.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".