ArticleScientific reports2025
Weighting health-related estimates in the GCAT cohort and the general population of Catalonia.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on "Multiethnic community cardio-metabolic risk factor screening in Northeast Florida: The VIDASANA Project".American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Article
- Fruit intake, fruit glycemic load, and type 2 diabetes risk: findings from a community based Korean cohort study.Nutrition research and practice · 2026Article
- Comment on "In the Search of the Ideal Moroccan Feminine Beauty: Body Aesthetic Preferences Across Demographics".Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Population-based cohorts play a key role in personalized medicine. However, it is known that cohorts are affected by the "healthy volunteer bias" where participants are generally healthier than the broader population, compromising its representativeness. Here, we assess the healthy bias, identifying bias key indicators for representativeness of the GCAT cohort, encompassing 20,000 adult participants of Catalonia, and generating survey raked weights to enhance the cohort's comparability. To assess and correct the bias, we compare multiple variables across sociodemographic, lifestyle, diseases and medication domains. Electronic health records of Catalonia (SIDIAP), the Health Survey of Catalonia (ESCA) and registers from the statistics institute of Catalonia (IDESCAT) and Spain (INE) were used to make the comparisons. We observed that the GCAT cohort is enriched in women and younger individuals, people with higher socioeconomic status and more health conscious and healthier individuals in terms of mortality and chronic disease prevalence. Raked survey weighting identified sex, birth year, rurality, education level, civil status, occupation status, smoking habit, household size, self-perceived health status and number of primary care visits as key weight variables. On average, raked weights reduced the differences by 70% for compared variables, and by 26% in disease prevalence estimates. We can conclude that the application of raked weights has enhanced the cohort's representativeness, improved comparability, and yielded more precise estimates when analysing GCAT data.
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.