The Relationship Between Culture and the Modifiable Risk Factors of Dementia Among Indigenous Peoples in Canada, the USA, Australia, and New Zealand: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Compared to non-Indigenous peoples, the prevalence of dementia is higher among Indigenous Peoples in Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia, and poses significant challenges to individual, family, and community health and well-being. Connection to culture, a social determinant of health for Indigenous Peoples, may influence the prevalence and incidence of modifiable risk factors for dementia (e.g., excessive alcohol use and diabetes). However, no existing scoping reviews have summarized the available literature regarding connection to culture and modifiable risk factors for dementia among Indigenous Peoples in Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia. We will conduct a scoping review to identify, summarize, and evaluate the literature in this area, while also highlighting gender-based differences. Methods: We will use the 2020 Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. We will systematically search PsychInfo, Web of Science, PubMed, ERIC, CINAHL, and gray literature databases to identify relevant qualitative and quantitative studies. Four reviewers will assess titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for inclusion. We will chart and synthesize extracted data to summarize the influence of connection to culture on modifiable risk factors of dementia and assess whether gender impacts this relationship. We will also evaluate the methodological quality of published literature using the Consolidated Criteria for Strengthening Reporting of Health Research involving Indigenous peoples. Reporting will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews guidelines. Discussion: This review will synthesize and provide important insight into the relationship between connection to Indigenous culture and modifiable risk factors for dementia. Findings may help to inform Indigenous health promotion initiatives, policy, future research, and clinical practice. Scoping Review Registration: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/3ykdr ).
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 | 0.116 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.005 |
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".