ArticleDigital health
Geographic and demographic gaps in publicly available Alzheimer's disease datasets: A large language model-based discovery and analysis.
Article in Digital health. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Alzheimer's disease (AD) affects millions worldwide, and researchers heavily rely on datasets for diagnosis and treatment. Identifying relevant datasets is challenging due to data gaps and bias related to the demographics and geographic origin. Method: We investigated AD data gaps by identifying and manually curating publicly accessible AD datasets containing imaging and/or tabular data. We also extracted key information such as data availability, geographic location, and participant demographics. We used five Large Language Models (LLMs) to identify AD datasets, allowing us to explore potential datasets while also evaluating retrieval consistency across models. Result: We identified 24 publicly accessible AD datasets (open access or controlled access via registration). These datasets enabled us to emphasize three critical gaps: (1) variability in AD dataset retrieval, as observed through differences in LLM outputs, related to dataset visibility and accessibility; (2) geographical imbalance, with North America contributing 55.6% of datasets, US alone 66.7%, followed by Europe at 36.1%, and smaller shares from South America 11.1%, Asia 8.3%, and Africa 2.8%; and (3) demographic deficits, with the majority of datasets predominantly White, as 9 of 24 had over 80% White participants. Among the seven datasets that reported any Black participant representation, the proportion of Black participants ranged from 15.3% to 18.8%. Conclusion: These findings reveal significant disparities in the availability and retrieval of AD datasets, with most data concentrated in Western countries and critical gaps in demographic representation. LLMs show inconsistent retrieval, particularly for newer, smaller, or region-specific datasets, which may perpetuate existing biases.
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.