Evaluating Social Determinants of Health-Based Alternatives to Race-Based Cognitive Normative Models.

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurology Pub Date : 2024-12-10 Epub Date: 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1212/WNL.0000000000210030
Andrea Lauren Christman Schneider, Anny Reyes, James A Henegan, Vidyulata Kamath, Lisa Wruck, James Russell Pike, Alden Gross, Keenan Walker, Anna Kucharska-Newton, Josef Coresh, Thomas H Mosley, Rebecca F Gottesman, Michael Griswold
{"title":"Evaluating Social Determinants of Health-Based Alternatives to Race-Based Cognitive Normative Models.","authors":"Andrea Lauren Christman Schneider, Anny Reyes, James A Henegan, Vidyulata Kamath, Lisa Wruck, James Russell Pike, Alden Gross, Keenan Walker, Anna Kucharska-Newton, Josef Coresh, Thomas H Mosley, Rebecca F Gottesman, Michael Griswold","doi":"10.1212/WNL.0000000000210030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Race and ethnicity are proxy measures of sociocultural factors that influence cognitive test performance. Our objective was to compare different regression-based cognitive normative models adjusting for demographics and different combinations of easily accessible/commonly used social determinants of health (SDoH) factors, which may help describe cognitive performance variability historically captured by ethnoracial differences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed cross-sectional analyses on data from Black and White participants without mild cognitive impairment/dementia in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study who attended visit 5 in 2011-2013. Participants underwent a battery of 11 cognitive tests (3 domains: memory, executive function, language). We fit 6 separate normative models for each cognitive test, all including age and education, with different combinations of race, the Wide Range of Achievement Test (education quality proxy), and area deprivation index (neighborhood deprivation) associated with current residence. We compared model fits and calculated concordances/discordances between models using z-scores derived from each normative model and a z-score <-1.5 threshold for impairment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants (n = 2,392) had a mean age of 74.4 years, 60.4% were female, and 17.1% were of self-reported Black race. The \"Full\" model with race alongside demographic and SDoH measures consistently outperformed other nested submodels (likelihood ratios ≥ 100) for all domains/tests except Delayed Word Recall. Models with education quality alone (\"WRAT\") generally outperformed models with neighborhood deprivation (\"ADI\") or race (\"Race\") alone for memory and language tests while \"Race\" models performed better for executive function tests. Adding neighborhood deprivation to education quality (\"WRAT + ADI\") did not improve models vs using \"WRAT\" alone. Across all domains/tests, the concordance compared with the \"Full\" model was lower for \"Education\" and \"ADI\" models than for other nested models. Although numbers were small, there was greater discordance among Black (range = 8.2%-23.2%) compared with White (range = 2.2%-3.4%) participants, particularly for Boston Naming Test and executive function tests.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Education quality outperformed neighborhood disadvantage as an additional/alternative SDoH measure in normative models and may be useful to collect in cognitive aging studies. While performance varied across cognitive domains and tests, routinely reported SDoH variables (education level, education quality, late-life neighborhood deprivation) did not fully account for observed ethnoracial variability; future work should evaluate SDoH across the lifespan in more ethnoracially diverse populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":19256,"journal":{"name":"Neurology","volume":"103 11","pages":"e210030"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11567649/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000210030","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Race and ethnicity are proxy measures of sociocultural factors that influence cognitive test performance. Our objective was to compare different regression-based cognitive normative models adjusting for demographics and different combinations of easily accessible/commonly used social determinants of health (SDoH) factors, which may help describe cognitive performance variability historically captured by ethnoracial differences.

Methods: We performed cross-sectional analyses on data from Black and White participants without mild cognitive impairment/dementia in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study who attended visit 5 in 2011-2013. Participants underwent a battery of 11 cognitive tests (3 domains: memory, executive function, language). We fit 6 separate normative models for each cognitive test, all including age and education, with different combinations of race, the Wide Range of Achievement Test (education quality proxy), and area deprivation index (neighborhood deprivation) associated with current residence. We compared model fits and calculated concordances/discordances between models using z-scores derived from each normative model and a z-score <-1.5 threshold for impairment.

Results: Participants (n = 2,392) had a mean age of 74.4 years, 60.4% were female, and 17.1% were of self-reported Black race. The "Full" model with race alongside demographic and SDoH measures consistently outperformed other nested submodels (likelihood ratios ≥ 100) for all domains/tests except Delayed Word Recall. Models with education quality alone ("WRAT") generally outperformed models with neighborhood deprivation ("ADI") or race ("Race") alone for memory and language tests while "Race" models performed better for executive function tests. Adding neighborhood deprivation to education quality ("WRAT + ADI") did not improve models vs using "WRAT" alone. Across all domains/tests, the concordance compared with the "Full" model was lower for "Education" and "ADI" models than for other nested models. Although numbers were small, there was greater discordance among Black (range = 8.2%-23.2%) compared with White (range = 2.2%-3.4%) participants, particularly for Boston Naming Test and executive function tests.

Discussion: Education quality outperformed neighborhood disadvantage as an additional/alternative SDoH measure in normative models and may be useful to collect in cognitive aging studies. While performance varied across cognitive domains and tests, routinely reported SDoH variables (education level, education quality, late-life neighborhood deprivation) did not fully account for observed ethnoracial variability; future work should evaluate SDoH across the lifespan in more ethnoracially diverse populations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估基于种族认知规范模型的健康社会决定因素替代方案。
背景和目的:种族和民族是影响认知测试成绩的社会文化因素的替代措施。我们的目的是比较不同的基于回归的认知标准模型,这些模型调整了人口统计学因素和不同的易获取/常用的健康社会决定因素(SDoH)组合,这可能有助于描述历来被人种差异所捕获的认知表现变异性:我们对动脉粥样硬化社区风险研究(Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study)中没有轻度认知障碍/痴呆症的黑人和白人参与者的数据进行了横断面分析,这些参与者在 2011-2013 年期间参加了第 5 次访视。参与者接受了 11 项认知测试(3 个领域:记忆、执行功能和语言)。我们为每项认知测试拟合了 6 个独立的常模,所有常模都包括年龄和教育程度,并与当前居住地相关的种族、广泛成就测试(教育质量替代指标)和地区贫困指数(邻里贫困程度)进行了不同的组合。我们比较了模型拟合度,并使用每个常模得出的 z 分数和 z 分数计算模型之间的一致性/不一致性:参与者(n = 2,392)的平均年龄为 74.4 岁,60.4% 为女性,17.1% 自称为黑人。在所有领域/测试中,除延迟单词回忆外,种族与人口统计学和 SDoH 测量的 "完整 "模型始终优于其他嵌套子模型(似然比≥ 100)。在记忆和语言测试中,仅有教育质量("WRAT")的模型通常优于仅有邻里贫困("ADI")或种族("Race")的模型,而 "Race "模型在执行功能测试中表现更好。在教育质量("WRAT + ADI")的基础上增加邻里贫困程度,与单独使用 "WRAT "相比,并没有改善模型。在所有领域/测试中,与 "完整 "模型相比,"教育 "和 "ADI "模型的一致性低于其他嵌套模型。虽然人数较少,但黑人(范围 = 8.2%-23.2%)与白人(范围 = 2.2%-3.4%)相比,存在更大的不一致性,尤其是波士顿命名测试和执行功能测试:讨论:在常模中,作为 SDoH 的附加/替代测量指标,教育质量优于邻里劣势,在认知老龄化研究中收集教育质量可能很有用。虽然在认知领域和测试中的表现各不相同,但常规报告的 SDoH 变量(教育水平、教育质量、晚年邻里贫困)并不能完全解释观察到的种族差异;未来的工作应该在种族更加多样化的人群中评估整个生命周期的 SDoH。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neurology
Neurology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
4.00%
发文量
1973
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurology, the official journal of the American Academy of Neurology, aspires to be the premier peer-reviewed journal for clinical neurology research. Its mission is to publish exceptional peer-reviewed original research articles, editorials, and reviews to improve patient care, education, clinical research, and professionalism in neurology. As the leading clinical neurology journal worldwide, Neurology targets physicians specializing in nervous system diseases and conditions. It aims to advance the field by presenting new basic and clinical research that influences neurological practice. The journal is a leading source of cutting-edge, peer-reviewed information for the neurology community worldwide. Editorial content includes Research, Clinical/Scientific Notes, Views, Historical Neurology, NeuroImages, Humanities, Letters, and position papers from the American Academy of Neurology. The online version is considered the definitive version, encompassing all available content. Neurology is indexed in prestigious databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Biological Abstracts®, PsycINFO®, Current Contents®, Web of Science®, CrossRef, and Google Scholar.
期刊最新文献
Clinical Reasoning: A 65-Year-Old Woman With Isolated Macroglossia as the Initial Presentation of a Rare Disease. Eculizumab in AQP4-IgG NMOSD: Efficacy in the Real World and Potential Warning of Meningococcal Vaccines. Moving Things Along: A New Model for the NINDS Clinical Neurotherapeutic Pipeline. Prevalence of Progression Independent of Relapse Activity and Relapse-Associated Worsening in Patients With AQP4-IgG-Positive NMOSD. Teaching NeuroImage: Occipital Condyle Syndrome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1