ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2024
Utilization of geospatial distribution in the measurement of study cohort representativeness.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Black community member perceptions and ethics recommendations on epigenomic research.Clinical epigenetics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe ability to apply results from a study to a broader population remains a primary objective in translational science. Distinct from intrinsic elements of scientific rigor, the extrinsic concept of generalization requires there be alignment between a study cohort and population in which results are expected to be applied. Widespread efforts have been made to quantify representativeness of study cohorts. These techniques, however, often consider the study and target cohorts as monolithic collections that can be directly compared. Overlooking known impacts to health from socio-demographic and environmental factors tied to individual's geographical location, and potentially obfuscating misalignment in underrepresented population subgroups. This manuscript introduces several measures to account for geographic information in the assessment of cohort representation.
methodsMetrics were defined across two themes: First, measures of recruitment, to assess if a study cohort is drawn at an expected rate and in an expected geographical pattern with respect to individuals in a reference cohort. Second, measures of individual characteristics, to assess if the individuals in the study cohort accurately reflect the sociodemographic, clinical, and geographic diversity observed across a reference cohort while accounting for the geospatial proximity of individuals.
resultsAs an empirical demonstration, methods are applied to an active clinical study examining asthma in Black/African American patients at a US Midwestern pediatric hospital. Results illustrate how areas of over- and under-recruitment can be identified and contextualized in light of study recruitment patterns at an individual-level, highlighting the ability to identify a subset of features for which the study cohort closely resembled the broader population. In addition they provide an opportunity to dive deeper into misalignments, to identify study cohort members that are in some way distinct from the communities for which they are expected to represent.
conclusionTogether, these metrics provide a comprehensive spatial assessment of a study cohort with respect to a broader target population. Such an approach offers researchers a toolset by which to target expected generalization of results derived from a given study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.