Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
194,226 studies31 sourcesUpdated 51 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0JAMA Network Open

Simpson’s Paradox, Amyloid Paradox, and Racial Differences

14 more authors
14 affiliations
  1. 1Institute for Informatics, Data Science, and Biostatistics, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri
  2. 2Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
  3. 3Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri
  4. 4Siteman Cancer Center Biostatistics and Qualitative Research Shared Resource, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri
  5. 5Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
  6. 6Bursky School of Public Health, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
  7. 7Department of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
  8. 8Division of Geriatrics and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison
  9. 9Wisconsin Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Madison
  10. 10Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin
  11. 11Department of Neurology, Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston
  12. 12Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston
  13. 13Killion Center for Neurodegeneration and Experimental Therapeutics, Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Department of Neurology, University of Alabama at Birmingham
  14. 14Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri

Abstract

Importance: The underlying mechanisms for the paradox of higher prevalence of dementia but lower prevalence of amyloid positivity in self-identified Black US residents than White US residents remain unknown and are important for designing and analyzing prevention and treatment trials of Alzheimer disease.

Objective: To assess whether the age of mean amyloid onset (AMAO) explains the paradox of the reported racial differences in dementia and amyloid positivity.

Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective, multicenter, longitudinal cohort study with harmonized amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and clinical data from self-identified Black and White individuals who were middle-aged or older across 5 academic institutes in the US conducting studies of memory and aging. The study was conducted from June 2020 to March 2026.

Exposures: Self-identified race, vascular comorbidities, sex, age, educational attainment, and apolipoprotein E ε4 carrier status.

Main Outcomes and Measures: Amyloid PET centiloid and cognition measured as a global cognitive composite constructed by averaging z scores across at least 6 cognitive tests in self-identified Black and White participants. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were conducted to compare racial groups in amyloid burden and cognition. Data were also analyzed using propensity score–matching of 2:1 (White:Black) by main covariates.

Results: Of 2653 participants (mean [SD] age, 69.0 [8.8] years; 1574 [59.3%] female), 406 (15.3%) were Black and 2247 (84.7%) were White. Black participants had a delayed AMAO compared with White participants in the unmatched (83.86 [95% CI, 76.55-91.35] years vs 71.38 [95% CI, 67.74-73.17] years; difference, 12.48 [95% CI, 5.03-22.28 years) and covariate-matched (85.17 [95% CI, 80.16-91.38] years vs 72.61 [95% CI, 70.79-74.55] years; difference, 12.57 [95% CI, 7.25-19.54] years) analyses. Although Black participants had a lower overall prevalence of amyloid positivity than White participants (24.1% vs 31.7%, P = .002), they had a higher prevalence of amyloid positivity than White participants in almost every interval of expected years to amyloid onset (EYAO, defined as participants’ simple chronological age minus the group-specific AMAO), hence Simpson’s paradox, (eg, −15 to −10 years for Black minus White prevalence in the unmatched cohort, 15.30 percentage points [95% Wilson CI, 0.06-0.26]). No significant racial differences were found in the longitudinal rate of amyloid accumulation after adjusting for the covariates either before the AMAO (eg, unmatched cohort Black minus White difference in slope per year, −0.28 [95% CI, −0.64 to 0.08]; P = .13) or after the AMAO (eg, unmatched cohort Black minus White difference in slope, −1.23 [95% CI, −3.05 to 0.60]; P = .17). Black participants had a higher prevalence of vascular comorbidities than White participants (56.9% vs 39.3%; P < .001), and Black but not White participants showed significant cognitive decline before the AMAO (Black minus White difference in slope per year, −0.016 (95% CI, −0.028 to −0.004)]; P = .009).

Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that Black participants had delayed AMAO compared with White participants, partially explaining the paradox of the reported racial differences in prevalence of amyloid positivity and dementia. This finding suggests that EYAO may be an important confounder to analyze racial differences and may serve as a better (than age) inclusion or exclusion criterion to improve the representation of Black US residents in clinical trials of Alzheimer disease.

Related

  1. Productivity Paradox of the AI-Augmented Inbox
    A Jay Holmgren
    JAMA Network OpenPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0General medicineCrossref
  2. The LAI–Oral Antipsychotic Efficacy–Effectiveness Paradox in Schizophrenia
    Kaloyan Stoychev, Sara Begum, Sheraz Nazar
    Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  3. The Gendered Credibility Paradox of Suicide: A Teaching Case from Brigitte Bardot’s La Vérité
    Philippe Courtet, Emilie Olié
    Academic PsychiatryPeer-reviewedLicence not statedFull textNeurosciencePsychiatry & mental healthHAL
  4. Targeting host ferroptosis in cancer cachexia: Tumor-immune triggers, tissue wasting, and the therapeutic paradox
    Yan Li, Rui Chen, Shengguang Ding
    iSciencePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textOncologyCell PressCrossrefEurope PMC
  5. The fixation paradox: when less is more in laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repair
    Mateusz Zamkowski, Maciej Śmietański
    Journal of Abdominal Wall SurgeryPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textSurgery & anaesthesiaPMC
BibTeX
@article{xiong2026simpsons,
  title = {{Simpson’s Paradox, Amyloid Paradox, and Racial Differences}},
  author = {Chengjie Xiong and Jingqin Luo and Ruijin Lu and Sarah Hartz and Walter Kukull and Suzanne E. Schindler and Joyce E. Balls-Berry and Jason Hassenstab and David A. Wolk and Carey E. Gleason and Sterling C. Johnson and Reisa Sperling and Keith Johnson and Erik D. Roberson and Krista L. Moulder and Emily Gremminger and Folasade Agboola and Elizabeth A. Grant and Russ Hornbeck and Parinaz Massoumzadeh and Sarah Keefe and Donna Dierker and Shaney Flores and David M. Holtzman and Tammie Benzinger and John C. Morris},
  journal = {JAMA Network Open},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.40868},
  url = {https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2855859},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Simpson’s Paradox, Amyloid Paradox, and Racial Differences
AU  - Chengjie Xiong
AU  - Jingqin Luo
AU  - Ruijin Lu
AU  - Sarah Hartz
AU  - Walter Kukull
AU  - Suzanne E. Schindler
AU  - Joyce E. Balls-Berry
AU  - Jason Hassenstab
AU  - David A. Wolk
AU  - Carey E. Gleason
AU  - Sterling C. Johnson
AU  - Reisa Sperling
AU  - Keith Johnson
AU  - Erik D. Roberson
AU  - Krista L. Moulder
AU  - Emily Gremminger
AU  - Folasade Agboola
AU  - Elizabeth A. Grant
AU  - Russ Hornbeck
AU  - Parinaz Massoumzadeh
AU  - Sarah Keefe
AU  - Donna Dierker
AU  - Shaney Flores
AU  - David M. Holtzman
AU  - Tammie Benzinger
AU  - John C. Morris
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/27
JO  - JAMA Network Open
DO  - 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.40868
UR  - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2855859
AB  - Importance: The underlying mechanisms for the paradox of higher prevalence of dementia but lower prevalence of amyloid positivity in self-identified Black US residents than White US residents remain unknown and are important for designing and analyzing prevention and treatment trials of Alzheimer disease.  Objective: To assess whether the age of mean amyloid onset (AMAO) explains the paradox of the reported racial differences in dementia and amyloid positivity.  Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective, multicenter, longitudinal cohort study with harmonized amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and clinical data from self-identified Black and White individuals who were middle-aged or older across 5 academic institutes in the US conducting studies of memory and aging. The study was conducted from June 2020 to March 2026.  Exposures: Self-identified race, vascular comorbidities, sex, age, educational attainment, and apolipoprotein E ε4 carrier status.  Main Outcomes and Measures: Amyloid PET centiloid and cognition measured as a global cognitive composite constructed by averaging z scores across at least 6 cognitive tests in self-identified Black and White participants. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were conducted to compare racial groups in amyloid burden and cognition. Data were also analyzed using propensity score–matching of 2:1 (White:Black) by main covariates.  Results: Of 2653 participants (mean [SD] age, 69.0 [8.8] years; 1574 [59.3%] female), 406 (15.3%) were Black and 2247 (84.7%) were White. Black participants had a delayed AMAO compared with White participants in the unmatched (83.86 [95% CI, 76.55-91.35] years vs 71.38 [95% CI, 67.74-73.17] years; difference, 12.48 [95% CI, 5.03-22.28 years) and covariate-matched (85.17 [95% CI, 80.16-91.38] years vs 72.61 [95% CI, 70.79-74.55] years; difference, 12.57 [95% CI, 7.25-19.54] years) analyses. Although Black participants had a lower overall prevalence of amyloid positivity than White participants (24.1% vs 31.7%, P = .002), they had a higher prevalence of amyloid positivity than White participants in almost every interval of expected years to amyloid onset (EYAO, defined as participants’ simple chronological age minus the group-specific AMAO), hence Simpson’s paradox, (eg, −15 to −10 years for Black minus White prevalence in the unmatched cohort, 15.30 percentage points [95% Wilson CI, 0.06-0.26]). No significant racial differences were found in the longitudinal rate of amyloid accumulation after adjusting for the covariates either before the AMAO (eg, unmatched cohort Black minus White difference in slope per year, −0.28 [95% CI, −0.64 to 0.08]; P = .13) or after the AMAO (eg, unmatched cohort Black minus White difference in slope, −1.23 [95% CI, −3.05 to 0.60]; P = .17). Black participants had a higher prevalence of vascular comorbidities than White participants (56.9% vs 39.3%; P < .001), and Black but not White participants showed significant cognitive decline before the AMAO (Black minus White difference in slope per year, −0.016 (95% CI, −0.028 to −0.004)]; P = .009).  Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that Black participants had delayed AMAO compared with White participants, partially explaining the paradox of the reported racial differences in prevalence of amyloid positivity and dementia. This finding suggests that EYAO may be an important confounder to analyze racial differences and may serve as a better (than age) inclusion or exclusion criterion to improve the representation of Black US residents in clinical trials of Alzheimer disease.
SN  - 2574-3805
ER  -