ArticleEquity neuroscience2026
Counting what counts: Time for an annual statistical update on neurologic health equity.
Article in Equity neuroscience, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Neurologic diseases are among the leading causes of death and disability in the United States, yet the magnitude, distribution, and trajectory of neurologic disparities remain difficult to monitor across diseases and populations. Opportunity: Other fields have established powerful recurring statistical resources that have become essential references for clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and the public. For instance, the American Heart Association has produced an annual Proposal: This Viewpoint proposes an annual U.S. Neurologic Equity Annual Report (NEAR), modeled directly on these precedents, outlines its scope, candidate federal and private data sources, and strategic partnerships. NEAR would synthesize the most recent nationally representative data on incidence, prevalence, mortality, disability-adjusted life years, risk factors, health-care utilization, access and quality of care, and economic costs. Whenever data permit, estimates will be stratified by race/ethnicity, sex/gender, age, and socioeconomic characteristics. Conclusion: Neurology needs a recurring statistical framework that makes inequities measurable, comparable, and visible from year to year. NEAR would provide a common evidence base for identifying populations at greatest risk, tracking whether disparities are widening or narrowing, prioritizing research and prevention, guiding equitable allocation of resources, and evaluating progress toward neurologic health equity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.