Assessing the generalizability of prevalence estimates from the <i>All of Us</i> Research Program

The National Institutes of Health's All of Us Research Program (All of Us) aims to enhance precision medicine by collecting multimodal data from one million or more participants. Because All of Us prioritizes enrollment from populations for which there is limited data on health outcomes using nonprobability sampling methods, prevalence estimates may not reflect those of the general U.S. population. This study examines the challenges of estimating electronic health record-based disease prevalence from All of Us and offers a framework and novel R package (waou) to help researchers consider these complex issues. We investigated the application of three weighting techniques to improve generalizability for dementia, type 2 diabetes, and depression prevalence estimates. Using data from All of Us alongside the National Health Interview Survey as a benchmark, we found that weighting approaches yielded more representative estimates for dementia and type 2 diabetes, yet amplified bias for depression. Waou is presented as a tool to facilitate the application of these methodologies, empowering researchers to critically evaluate the generalizability of their estimates. This work underscores the need for careful consideration of bias in epidemiological research when using the All of Us dataset for population-level inferences.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2026-01-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwag010
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
41.27
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Assessing the generalizability of prevalence estimates from the All of Us Research Program

Jennifer C. Z. Adjemian, Tamara R. Litwin, Mahmoud Elkasabi, Melissa L McPheeters et al.
1 citations
American Journal of Epidemiology
Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
41.27
article

Assessing the generalizability of prevalence estimates from the All of Us Research Program

Jennifer C. Z. Adjemian, Tamara R. Litwin, Mahmoud Elkasabi, Melissa L McPheeters, Claire E. Schulkey, Barrett Montgomery, Ariba Huda, Chandan Sastry, Laura Marcial, M Daniel Brannock, Sarra Hedden, Philip Greenland
article en
1 citations

Abstract

The National Institutes of Health's All of Us Research Program (All of Us) aims to enhance precision medicine by collecting multimodal data from one million or more participants. Because All of Us prioritizes enrollment from populations for which there is limited data on health outcomes using nonprobability sampling methods, prevalence estimates may not reflect those of the general U.S. population. This study examines the challenges of estimating electronic health record-based disease prevalence from All of Us and offers a framework and novel R package (waou) to help researchers consider these complex issues. We investigated the application of three weighting techniques to improve generalizability for dementia, type 2 diabetes, and depression prevalence estimates. Using data from All of Us alongside the National Health Interview Survey as a benchmark, we found that weighting approaches yielded more representative estimates for dementia and type 2 diabetes, yet amplified bias for depression. Waou is presented as a tool to facilitate the application of these methodologies, empowering researchers to critically evaluate the generalizability of their estimates. This work underscores the need for careful consideration of bias in epidemiological research when using the All of Us dataset for population-level inferences.

American Journal of Epidemiology
Northwestern University (US), National Institutes of Health (US), RTI International (US), National Institute of Nursing Research (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
41.27
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.