Back

Reliability and Validity of Self-reported Vascular Risk Factors in a Multi-Ethnic Community Based Study of Aging and Dementia

Lee, A. J.; Sanchez, D. L.; Reyes-Dumeyer, D.; Brickman, A. M.; Lantigua, R. A.; Vardarajan, B. N.; Mayeux, R.

2023-04-17 neurology
10.1101/2023.04.12.23288492 medRxiv
Show abstract

INTRODUCTIONThe reliability and validity of self-reported cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk factors remains inconsistent in aging research. METHODSWe assessed the reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity, and percent agreement of self-reported hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease, in comparison with direct measures of blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and medication use in 1870 participants in a multiethic study of aging and dementia. RESULTSReliability of self-reported for hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease was excellent. Agreement between self-reports and clinical measures was moderate for hypertension (kappa: 0.58), good for diabetes (kappa: 0.76-0.79), and moderate for heart disease (kappa: 0.45) differing slightly by age, sex, education, and race/ethnic group. Sensitivity and specificity for hypertension was 88.6%-78.1%, for diabetes was 87.7%-92.0% (HbA1c>6.5%) or 92.7%-92.8% (HbA1c >7%), and for heart disease was 85.8%-75.5%. DISCUSSIONSelf-reported history of hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease are reliable and valid compared to direct measurements or medication use.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.