How Generalizable Are Findings from a Community-Based Prospective Cohort Study? Extending Estimates from the Adult Changes in Thought Study to Its Source Population

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Gibbons, Laura E.^{a; *} | Mobley, Taylor^b | Mayeda, Elizabeth Rose^b | Lee, Cecilia S.^{c; d} | Gatto, Nicole M.^e | LaCroix, Andrea Z.^f | McEvoy, Linda K.^e | Crane, Paul K.^a | Hayes-Larson, Eleanor^b

Affiliations: [a] Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA | [b] Department of Epidemiology, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA | [c] Department of Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA | [d] Roger and Angie Karalis Johnson Retina Center, Seattle, WA, USA | [e] Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA | [f] Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Correspondence: [*] Correspondence to: Dr. Laura E. Gibbons, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Box 359780-PSB, 325 Ninth Ave, Seattle, WA 98104, USA. Tel.: +1 206 744 3391; Fax: +1 206 744 6988; E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract: Background:The Adult Changes in Thought (ACT) study is a cohort of Kaiser Permanente Washington members ages 65+ that began in 1994. Objective:We wanted to know how well ACT participants represented all older adults in the region, and how well ACT findings on eye disease and its relationship with Alzheimer’s disease generalized to all older adults in the Seattle Metropolitan Region. Methods:We used participation weights derived from pooling ACT and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data to estimate prevalences of common eye diseases and their associations with Alzheimer’s disease incidence. Cox proportional hazards models accounted for age, education, smoking, sex, and APOE genotype. Confidence intervals for weighted analyses were bootstrapped to account for error in estimating the weights. Results:ACT participants were fairly similar to older adults in the region. The largest differences were more self-reported current cholesterol medication use in BRFSS and higher proportions with low education in ACT. Incorporating the weights had little impact on prevalence estimates for age-related macular degeneration or glaucoma. Weighted estimates were slightly higher for diabetic retinopathy (weighted 5.7% (95% Confidence Interval 4.3, 7.1); unweighted 4.1% (3.6, 4.6)) and cataract history (weighted 51.8% (49.6, 54.3); unweighted 48.6% (47.3, 49.9)). The weighted hazard ratio for recent diabetic retinopathy diagnosis and Alzheimer’s disease was 1.84 (0.34, 4.29), versus 1.32 (0.87, 2.00) in unweighted ACT. Conclusions:Most, but not all, associations were similar after participation weighting. Even in community-based cohorts, extending inferences to broader populations may benefit from evaluation with participation weights.

Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease, bias, dementia, epidemiological research design, eye diseases, generalizability, integrated health-care delivery systems, prevalence, transportability

DOI: 10.3233/JAD-240247

Journal: Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 163-174, 2024