ReviewAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)
Multiracial participants in Alzheimer's research: scoping review and recommendations.
Review in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence suggests that Alzheimer's disease (AD) presents differently across ethnoracial groups, producing disparate risk and resilience profiles that may be measured through neuropsychological data. Extant AD research primarily examines monoracial groups, despite the fact that Multiracial individuals make up more than 10% of the US population. Failure to incorporate data from Multiracial participants (those endorsing two or more racial identities) limits research and clinical efforts to address AD in minoritized communities. A scoping review examined the use of neuropsychological data from Multiracial participants within AD research. Three databases were searched (APA PsycInfo, Embase, and Web of Science) for studies containing ethnoracially minoritized groups. Two independent researchers reviewed articles and included studies that met the following criteria: published in 2000 (the year the US Census formally allowed self-identification of multiple races) or later, in English, US-based cohort (as race is a social construct), reported neuropsychological data, and the research was AD-related. Searches yielded 855 original articles. Following abstract review, 484 articles were screened in full, resulting in 19 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Most excluded articles (66.67%) contained vague racial descriptions (e.g., use of an undefined Other Race group), making it difficult to know whether Multiracial participants existed in the dataset. Roughly one-third (29.03%) of articles were excluded because they described only monoracial groups. Analysis of neuropsychological outcomes showed that most articles included Multiracial participant data in larger group-level analyses (e.g., normal cognition versus dementia) or grouped their data with other, less represented ethnic or racial groups (e.g., Other Races). This review demonstrates the paucity of research and need for intentional consideration of the inclusion of Multiracial participants in AD research. Recommendations to improve reporting of data from Multiracial participants are offered, including considerations for the anticipation and adaptation to changes in the social definitions of ethnicity and race.
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.