Embedded Files
Stay updated on Critical Race Framework news
News for the Critical Race Framework:
News Aggregator
News Aggregator
Disclaimer: Results that rely on the CRF Quantitative Critical Appraisal Aid should be most considered as a starting point and educational resource in critical appraisal - highly preliminary. We cannot be fully certain of adjusted error estimates because we would need to re-analyze each dataset, which is beyond our capacity and resources to do. The QCAA is a generalized approach. Although crude in some respects (e.g., cumulative error), it adds value as a way to raise awareness of scientific gaps.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
May 3, 2025
Applying Public Health Liberation Theory to Dr. Marc Edwards' Lecture on the Washington, DC Lead Crisis
Applying Public Health Liberation Theory to Dr. Marc Edwards' Lecture on the Washington, DC Lead Crisis
Through the PHL lens, Dr. Edwards’ lecture is a powerful case study of applied liberation in the public health economy. His actions—exposing government misconduct, empowering communities, and challenging hegemonic narratives—align with PHL’s philosophy of moral courage, historical trauma recovery, and the Morality Principle. His praxis, research, and training efforts reflect PHL’s call for community-engaged, multi-faceted interventions to disrupt health inequity reproduction. The lecture’s focus on Black communities’ disproportionate harm underscores PHL’s emphasis on racial equity and historical trauma. By fostering horizontal and vertical integration, Edwards reduced anarchy in the public health economy, creating pathways for health equity. PHL would view his work as a model for transdisciplinary public health practice, though it would advocate for even stronger community-led legal and policy interventions (e.g., Flint injunction, PHL, p. 4) to prevent future crises. This interpretation highlights the urgent need for PHL’s radical transformation to ensure no community is left to drink poison in silence.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
May 3, 2025
AI Model Preferences in Comparing National Academies' "Ending Unequal Treatment" (2024) and the "Public Health Liberation" (2022) white paper
AI Model Preferences in Comparing National Academies' "Ending Unequal Treatment" (2024) and the "Public Health Liberation" (2022) white paper
Three AI models—Grok, ChatGPT, and Gemini 2.5 Experimental—analyzed two documents addressing health equity: the National Academies' "Ending Unequal Treatment" (EUT) and the "Public Health Liberation" (PHL) white paper. While all models recognized the strengths of both documents, their preferences diverged. Grok and Gemini favored PHL for its transformative, community-driven approach, emphasizing its philosophical innovation. ChatGPT preferred EUT for its evidence-based, actionable recommendations, prioritizing immediate applicability. This article explores these preferences, highlighting how AI models interpret complex social issues through distinct lenses of practicality versus visionary potential.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
May 2, 2025
Assessing Trump's FY 2026 Budget Proposal Through the Public Health Liberation Framework
Assessing Trump's FY 2026 Budget Proposal Through the Public Health Liberation Framework
The Public Health Liberation framework illuminates the profound health equity stakes in Trump’s FY 2026 budget proposal. Its philosophy exposes the budget’s moral disconnect, THIR dissects its mechanisms of harm, realism and hegemony unveil its power dynamics, and praxis charts a path for resistance. Collectively, these components reveal a policy that risks deepening disparities by prioritizing security over social welfare—a trajectory PHL deems both predictable and preventable through systemic change (PHL, p. 28).
While complex and U.S.-focused, PHL’s integrative approach and equity lens make it indispensable for contextualizing this budget amid rising disparities and political polarization. As Politico and Axios underscore the proposal’s contentiousness, PHL not only critiques but inspires action, echoing its mission to "transform the public health economy toward justice" (PHL, p. 2). In a landscape of competing priorities, PHL asserts health equity’s urgency—a clarion call policymakers and communities alike must heed.
Grok was asked to "Read materials, then assess usefulness of PHL theory and framework to understand and contextualize current events." The prompt included the Public Health Liberation manuscript, the White House FY26 budget proposal on domestic spending cuts (whitehouse.gov) and three articles on these proposals (Trump Tests GOP’s Appetite for Spending Cuts in Budget Plan (Bloomberg), Trump’s budget asks Congress for unprecedented federal funding cuts (Politico), and Dems launch pressure campaign to sink Trump's budget bill (Axios).
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
May 2, 2025
Public Health Liberation (PHL) Framework useful in Interpreting study on declining trust in public health
Public Health Liberation (PHL) Framework useful in Interpreting study on declining trust in public health
Below is an evaluation of the Washington Post article "Americans expect to lose trust in public health under new leadership" through the lens of Public Health Liberation (PHL) theory, as outlined in the provided document. PHL is a transdisciplinary framework aimed at accelerating health equity by analyzing the "public health economy"—the interplay of economic, political, and social drivers of health. It emphasizes liberation, community involvement, and addressing structural inequities to combat health disparities.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
May 2, 2025
The Extent of Usefulness of the Public Health Liberation (PHL) Framework in Interpreting and Analyzing the Washington Post Article
The Extent of Usefulness of the Public Health Liberation (PHL) Framework in Interpreting and Analyzing the Washington Post Article
The Public Health Liberation (PHL) framework, as outlined in "Public Health Liberation - An Emerging Transdiscipline to Elucidate and Transform the Public Health Economy," offers a comprehensive lens through which to interpret and analyze the Washington Post article "How public health has been upended in Trump’s first 100 days." The article details significant disruptions to the U.S. public health infrastructure under the Trump administration, including job cuts, funding reductions, and a shift in priorities that critics argue undermine efforts to prevent sickness, death, and injury. PHL, with its emphasis on health equity, liberation, community involvement, and the broader public health economy, provides a robust tool for critiquing these changes. However, while it excels in addressing structural and ideological drivers, it may not fully capture the immediate, practical impacts of specific policy decisions. This essay explores the extent of PHL's usefulness in interpreting the article, highlighting its strengths and limitations.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
May 2, 2025
Trump 2.0 as a Case Study for Public Health Liberation Theory
Trump 2.0 as a Case Study for Public Health Liberation Theory
Trump 2.0 serves as a vivid case study for Public Health Liberation theory, illustrating the anarchy, illiberation, and hegemonic influences within the public health economy that perpetuate health inequities. The administration’s policies, from deregulation to healthcare restrictions, exacerbate structural violence and historical trauma, particularly for marginalized communities. However, PHL’s framework—rooted in liberation philosophy, the Theory of Health Inequity Reproduction, and adaptive praxis—offers a roadmap for resistance and transformation. By fostering liberation safe spaces, mobilizing communities, and leveraging vertical and horizontal integration, PHL empowers communities to challenge Trump 2.0’s harmful policies and accelerate health equity. As PHL asserts, the public health economy’s contradictions can only be reconciled through a radical, community-driven approach that prioritizes liberation over acquiescence to systemic harm.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
May 1, 2025
Simplified Statistical Justification for the Critical Race Framework
Simplified Statistical Justification for the Critical Race Framework
The hypothetical example shows how errors in race measurement (20% misclassification) and unadjusted confounders inflate OR from 0.50 to 0.70, underestimating disparities. The CRF identifies these issues, demanding reliable data and confounder control, aligning with its goal to improve research accuracy. Real-world cases, like a retracted JAMA study on race and COVID-19 outcomes (JAMA Network), mirror these errors, reinforcing CRF’s necessity. However, small sample sizes in CRF validation limit definitive proof, requiring larger studies.
Error-prone research, as shown by the hypothetical study’s biased OR (0.70 vs. true 0.50), supports the CRF’s premise that poor racial taxonomy distorts results. By enforcing reliable and valid race measurement, the CRF aims to correct these errors, ensuring accurate findings for public health policy. Ongoing validation is needed to confirm its impact.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
May 1, 2025
Grok, ChatGPT Score PHL Against Health Equity Frameworks, PHL Scores Higher
Grok, ChatGPT Score PHL Against Health Equity Frameworks, PHL Scores Higher
Both Grok and ChatGPT provided structured comparisons of health inequity frameworks, including PHL, using scoring schemas to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. The frameworks analyzed overlapped partially, with Grok covering Krieger’s Ecosocial Theory, Griffith’s Anti-Racism Praxis, Ford & Airhihenbuwa’s Public Health Critical Race (PHCR) Praxis, Jones’ Levels of Racism, and the WHO/Marmot Social Determinants of Health (SDOH), while ChatGPT included Krieger, Griffith, Jones, Paula Braveman’s SDOH work, and David Williams’ Everyday Discrimination framework. Both analyses preferred PHL as the top framework due to its community-centeredness, theoretical innovation, and strong anti-racism focus, though they differed in scoring criteria, framework selection, and depth of analysis. Grok’s response was more comprehensive, leveraging the PHL document’s full text and providing a nuanced, transdisciplinary evaluation, while ChatGPT’s was concise but less detailed, omitting PHCR and misrepresenting some frameworks (e.g., Braveman as SDOH). The scoring schemas shared similar criteria but varied in granularity and application, with Grok using a 0–10 scale across five criteria and ChatGPT using a 1–5 scale across six. This comparison highlights Grok’s deeper engagement with the PHL document and broader framework coverage, contrasted with ChatGPT’s accessibility but limited scope.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
May 1, 2025
Comparative Analysis of Two Transformative Frameworks: Dismantling Institutional Racism and Public Health Liberation
Comparative Analysis of Two Transformative Frameworks: Dismantling Institutional Racism and Public Health Liberation
This essay presents the comparative findings of ChatGPT and Grok on the 2007 systemic intervention model (SIM) from Griffith et al. and the 2022 Public Health Liberation (PHL) theory from Williams et al. Both models preferred PHL theory over SIM. They received the same prompt, "Compare these and then make a decision on which is preferred." Griffith has received 274 citations, suggesting that PHL may present a post-radical conceptualization of health disparities theory. a subsequent analysis showed consistency between different ChatGPT accounts (intra-rater reliability).
Post-Analysis: We also conducted intra-rater analysis between an existing and new account of ChatGPT to test if prior chat history and user engagement biased results. ChatGPT reached the same conclusion. View here
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
May 1, 2025
Standard Public Health Research Practices Raise Ethical Concern
Standard Public Health Research Practices Raise Ethical Concern
This essay discusses the ethical concerns of a hypothetical community health intervention. The intervention involves evaluating community-based mental health services, leveraging training of community representatives and partnership with a major insurer, clinics, and community-based organizations. However, a critical view of this program sees a clearer benefit to others outside of the community.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 30, 2025
Summary of CRF 3.0 Application Across Five Studies from CRF Study
Summary of CRF 3.0 Application Across Five Studies from CRF Study
Applying the Critical Race Framework (CRF) 3.0 to five diverse health research articles (Banks et al., 2006; Ashing-Giwa et al., 2004; Skinner et al., 2003; Arias et al., 2003; Bell et al., 2018) reveals consistent and significant gaps in how race and ethnicity are critically evaluated and incorporated into research design, analysis, and interpretation. The overall finding, strongly supporting the conclusions of the dissertation from which the CRF originates, is that the majority of prompts within the framework were addressed at a "Low Quality" level or received "No Discussion" across these studies.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 30, 2025
The Ethical and Methodological Flaws in Advocating for Racial Concordance in Health
The Ethical and Methodological Flaws in Advocating for Racial Concordance in Health
Racial concordance in healthcare, defined as the alignment of race or ethnicity between patients and healthcare providers, has emerged as a significant topic in public health research, often framed as a strategy to address persistent racial disparities in health outcomes. The concept posits that shared racial or ethnic identity between patients and providers can enhance trust, communication, and clinical outcomes, particularly for marginalized populations. However, this framing raises critical questions about its alignment with equitable healthcare goals and its potential to inadvertently reinforce racial segregation reminiscent of Jim Crow-era policies. The notion of racial concordance, while appealing in its promise to mitigate disparities, demands rigorous scrutiny to avoid perpetuating essentialist views of race or diverting attention from systemic structural issues.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 29, 2025
Comprehensive Analysis of the Prescience of the 2022 Public Health Liberation Manuscript in the Context of 2025 Public Health Policies
Comprehensive Analysis of the Prescience of the 2022 Public Health Liberation Manuscript in the Context of 2025 Public Health Policies
The 2022 PHL manuscript demonstrates significant prescience in anticipating 2025 public health challenges under the Trump administration. Its concepts of public health economy, health equity, liberation, illiberation, morality principle, and historical trauma, along with its theories (THIR, Public Health Realism, Hegemonic Theory), align closely with current events, particularly the risks posed by lead pipe regulation rollbacks and the MAHA Commission’s focus. While horizontal integration, vertical integration, and liberation safe spaces show moderate prescience due to the top-down nature of federal policies, the gaze of the enslaved has limited alignment pending further information. PHL’s framework remains a vital guide for addressing structural inequities, especially in communities like Washington, DC, advocating for transformative, community-led public health strategies.
Prescience of the Public Health Liberation (PHL) Manuscript
Prescience of the Public Health Liberation (PHL) Manuscript
The Public Health Liberation (PHL) manuscript stands as a remarkably prescient work, offering a profound and systematic framework for understanding and confronting the chaotic, multifaceted public health crises of the present era. Its foresight lies not only in its ability to predict the trajectory of health system failures, but also in its incisive diagnosis of their root causes: an anarchic public health economy, fractured authority, the systemic condition of illiberation (constraints on freedom and agency experienced across all social positions), and the absence of a morally grounded, unifying vision. By weaving together interdisciplinary insights and centering community-driven liberation, PHL anticipated the fragmentation, public distrust, and ethical collapse that now define the post-pandemic landscape. Below is an expanded analysis of the manuscript’s prescience, illustrating its intellectual, ethical, and strategic depth.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 29, 2025
Comprehensive Analysis of the Prescience of the 2022 Public Health Liberation Manuscript in the Context of 2025 Public Health Policies
Comprehensive Analysis of the Prescience of the 2022 Public Health Liberation Manuscript in the Context of 2025 Public Health Policies
The 2022 PHL manuscript demonstrates significant prescience in anticipating 2025 public health challenges under the Trump administration. Its concepts of public health economy, health equity, liberation, illiberation, morality principle, and historical trauma, along with its theories (THIR, Public Health Realism, Hegemonic Theory), align closely with current events, particularly the risks posed by lead pipe regulation rollbacks and the MAHA Commission’s focus. While horizontal integration, vertical integration, and liberation safe spaces show moderate prescience due to the top-down nature of federal policies, the gaze of the enslaved has limited alignment pending further information. PHL’s framework remains a vital guide for addressing structural inequities, especially in communities like Washington, DC, advocating for transformative, community-led public health strategies.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 29, 2025
Dr. Williams, Principal Investigator for the Critical Race Framework, Clarifies Study Reliability Results, Evidence for CRF is Strong
Dr. Williams, Principal Investigator for the Critical Race Framework, Clarifies Study Reliability Results, Evidence for CRF is Strong
Dr. Christopher Williams’ study on the Critical Race Framework (CRF) provides promising evidence for its reliability, particularly through strong interrater agreement, despite limitations in interrater reliability (IRR) analysis due to sample size constraints. "In my study, I was highly transparent and accurate in my data interpretation. However, I may have overemphasized the results of interrater reliability (IRR) analysis. The percentage agreement among respondents in Phase II is strong evidence for the reliability of the Critical Race Framework. I was just hampered statistically by a small sample size hence unreliable interpretation of IRR," explained Dr. Williams. The study’s findings on interrater agreement demonstrate consistency among raters, offering a positive indication of the CRF’s reliability as a critical appraisal tool. However, the IRR results, measured using weighted kappa coefficients, could not be reliably interpreted due to an insufficient number of articles evaluated, rather than deficiencies in the CRF itself.
Interrater Agreement Findings: Interrater agreement was assessed using two methods—absolute agreement and a dichotomized scale (high/moderate vs. low/no discussion). Patterns in pairwise rater agreement showed greater consistency for high/moderate versus low/no discussion ratings compared to absolute agreement. Specifically, Raters 1 and 2 achieved agreement on 80% or more articles per item in 14 out of 20 instances, while Raters 1 and 3 reached this threshold in 18 out of 20 instances using the dichotomized scale (Table 43). These results suggest robust consensus among raters when evaluating articles with the CRF, supporting its potential reliability.
Interrater Reliability Limitations: IRR was analyzed using weighted kappa with quadratic weights for absolute agreement. However, significance testing for the weighted kappa coefficients was inconclusive due to the small sample size of articles (10 per analysis). According to Soeken and Prescott (1986), valid application of weighted kappa requires the number of subjects (in this case, articles) to exceed 2c², where c is the number of categories (4 in this study). This would necessitate at least 32 articles, far exceeding the study’s 10. Consequently, the IRR analysis was underpowered, and results could not be confidently interpreted. Notably, this limitation stems from sample size constraints, not the quality of the CRF itself. IRR analysis for the dichotomized scale was not conducted due to insufficient data variability (e.g., constants present for one or both raters).
Conclusion: While percentage agreement alone is not ideal for establishing reliability, the strong interrater agreement observed in this study provides encouraging evidence for the CRF’s reliability. The inability to draw conclusive IRR results highlights the need for future studies with larger sample sizes to meet statistical requirements for weighted kappa analysis. These findings underscore the CRF’s potential as a reliable tool for critical appraisal in public health research, pending further validation with expanded article evaluations.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 29, 2025
Nativity and Cultural Typology of Top Black Public Health Scholars: A Critical Appraisal
Nativity and Cultural Typology of Top Black Public Health Scholars: A Critical Appraisal
The term “Black” in public health scholarship is routinely used as a categorical umbrella that conceals the cultural, historical, and ancestral distinctions among people of African descent. While politically expedient, this flattening of identity undermines analytical precision, community accountability, and ethical rigor. Grounded in the Critical Race Framework (CRF) and Public Health Liberation (PHL)—which prioritize lived experience, cultural rootedness, and structural specificity—this study asks: Who are the “Black” scholars shaping the direction of public health discourse in the United States?
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 28, 2025
CRF Applied to Krieger study, "Racial Discrimination and Blood Pressure: The CARDIA Study"
CRF Applied to Krieger study, "Racial Discrimination and Blood Pressure: The CARDIA Study"
The Krieger study stands as a landmark effort in linking racial discrimination to health outcomes, yet its evaluation through the CR Framework exposes gaps in reliability and internal validity.
The Krieger study showed varied performance across the CRF domains. In the Reliability domain, it consistently received Low or No Discussion ratings, indicating minimal attention to the reliability of race data collection tools or measurement errors. The Validity domain was a strength, with most prompts rated High or Moderate, reflecting a robust conceptualization of race as a social construct and attention to within-group heterogeneity, though it had No Discussion on multiracial identities. For Internal Validity, the study had significant gaps, with many prompts rated No Discussion and only a few achieving High Quality, particularly in data presentation and interpretation. External Validity was mixed, with some prompts rated High or Moderate for addressing heterogeneity, but others receiving Low or No Discussion, especially regarding the changeability of race. Overall, the study excelled in Validity but demonstrated notable weaknesses in Reliability and Internal Validity due to frequent No Discussion or Low-Quality ratings.
The QCAA further quantifies these limitations, showing that a reported 7 mm Hg difference may adjust to 8.75 mm Hg with a CI of 3.5–14 mm Hg after accounting for measurement error and unmeasured confounding. This suggests that race-related biases may lead to underestimating effects and overestimating precision, necessitating cautious interpretation. By integrating the CR Framework's critical perspective with the QCAA's quantitative rigor, this evaluation advocates for enhanced handling of race variables in public health research. Addressing these methodological challenges is essential to improving the quality and applicability of findings, ultimately advancing efforts to reduce racial health disparities.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 28, 2025
In a Match-Up, AI Models Unanimously Favor Public Health Liberation Theory Over Ecosocial Theory
In a Match-Up, AI Models Unanimously Favor Public Health Liberation Theory Over Ecosocial Theory
Grok, Perplexity, Gemini, and CoPilot all prefer Public Health Liberation Theory over Ecosocial Theory, pointing to its emphasis on transformative changes and values. Each AI model was asked to respond to this prompt that includes both manuscripts, "Compare and determine your preferred. Explain why."
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 28, 2025
Comparative Analysis: "Structural Racism and Health Inequities" by Gee and Ford (2011) and "Public Health Liberation" by Williams et al. (2022)
Comparative Analysis: "Structural Racism and Health Inequities" by Gee and Ford (2011) and "Public Health Liberation" by Williams et al. (2022)
Grok finds Williams et al. (2022) more persuasive overall due to its innovative, community-driven approach and emphasis on actionable praxis. While Gee and Ford provide a robust academic foundation, their focus is narrower and less engaged with community agency. Williams et al.’s PHL framework, despite its theoretical density and need for empirical validation, offers a holistic, transdisciplinary vision that empowers communities to address systemic inequities directly. The inclusion of lived experiences, particularly from Black women leaders, and real-world examples (e.g., Comp Plan advocacy) makes PHL more relatable and applicable to those most affected by health inequities. However, PHL would benefit from integrating Gee and Ford’s rigorous evidence base to strengthen its theoretical claims and broaden its appeal.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 28, 2025
Comparison of QuantCrit and Critical Race Framework: A Critical Analysis of Quantitative Methodologies
Comparison of QuantCrit and Critical Race Framework: A Critical Analysis of Quantitative Methodologies
QuantCrit and the CR Framework are pivotal contributions to critical quantitative research, each addressing the misuse of race in distinct ways. QuantCrit offers a flexible, theoretically rich framework for educational research, while the CR Framework provides a standardized, empirically tested tool for public health. The CR Framework slightly edges out due to its actionable tool and empirical grounding, but QuantCrit’s broader influence and activist orientation make it equally valuable. Researchers should leverage QuantCrit for conceptual guidance and the CR Framework for operational rigor, potentially integrating them to create a unified methodology. Future work should focus on standardizing QuantCrit’s applications and validating the CR Framework with larger samples to maximize their impact on racial justice in research.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 28, 2025
Critical Race Framework More Empirically Grounded than Ford's Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP), AI Models Conclude
Critical Race Framework More Empirically Grounded than Ford's Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP), AI Models Conclude
In public health research, the use of race and ethnicity as variables has long been fraught with conceptual and methodological challenges, prompting critical examinations like Chandra L. Ford and Whitney N. L. Pirtle’s commentary in the American Journal of Epidemiology (2025) and Christopher Williams’ Critical Race Framework Study (2024). Ford’s commentary leverages Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP) to critique the inconsistent and often omitted use of race and ethnicity in epidemiology, advocating for antiracist methods to address health inequities. Williams’ Critical Race Framework (CRF) develops a structured tool to appraise studies using racial taxonomy, emphasizing reliability, validity, internal validity, and external validity. This essay evaluates the empirical grounding of these two works, defends the position that Williams’ CRF is more empirically grounded, and discusses the components of empirical grounding and its importance in scientific inquiry.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 27, 2025
Fragmentation and Coherence of Critical Race Theory in Health-Related Fields (2019–2025): Analysis by Grok and ChatGPT
Fragmentation and Coherence of Critical Race Theory in Health-Related Fields (2019–2025): Analysis by Grok and ChatGPT
This study evaluates the claim that Critical Race Theory (CRT) in health-related fields from 2019 to 2025 has fragmented into field-specific, inconsistent applications, functioning as a flexible vocabulary rather than a coherent theoretical movement. Using a thematic analysis of 238 PubMed abstracts retrieved via a systematic search, five themes emerged: application of CRT in health disciplines (41%), intersectionality and identity-based inequities (26%), structural racism and health disparities (20%), challenges and critiques of CRT application (8%), and anti-racism education and policy reform (5%). Findings confirm fragmentation, with field-specific applications and variable rigor indicating CRT’s use as a flexible vocabulary in many instances. However, theoretical coherence, driven by CRT’s principles (e.g., race consciousness, praxis), and humanistic engagement (e.g., marginalized perspectives) suggest a cohesive core with transformative potential if standardized. The study highlights the need for community-driven, anti-racist methodologies to enhance CRT’s impact in health research and practice.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 27, 2025
ChatGPT Responses to Grok's Findings on High Rate of Studies Lacking Intervention
ChatGPT Responses to Grok's Findings on High Rate of Studies Lacking Intervention
ChatGPT responds to Grok's analysis showing a low percent of studies with an intervention arm or active care or interventions, such as routine clinical care, treatments, procedures, behavioral programs, preventive care, or palliative care. The findings reveal that research involving African Americans overwhelmingly centers on observation rather than intervention, documenting disparities without meaningfully disrupting the structures that cause them. Even when care is provided, it remains individualized, failing to address systemic conditions. These patterns reflect a broader institutional inertia that prioritizes scholarly output over community liberation. To align with true public health ethics and fulfill the promises of racial justice, future research must abandon passive documentation in favor of active, structural change grounded in the principles of Public Health Liberation.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 27, 2025
Ethical Concerns in U.S. Longitudinal Health Studies
Ethical Concerns in U.S. Longitudinal Health Studies
In this paper we examine several U.S.-based longitudinal studies that, like Tuskegee and the Woodlawn Study, involved disadvantaged groups and raised serious ethical concerns (consent violations, exploitation, stigmatization, data misuse, or scope creep). By analyzing these cases in detail, we highlight recurring patterns and lessons for ethical oversight in long-term health research.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 26, 2025
Detailed Analysis of Nine Public Health Studies Using the Critical Race Framework
Detailed Analysis of Nine Public Health Studies Using the Critical Race Framework
This paper provides an in-depth evaluation of nine public health studies addressing racial health disparities, utilizing Christopher Williams’ Critical Race Framework (CR Framework) Study (2024) and the Quantitative Critical Appraisal Aid (QCAA). The CR Framework assesses the methodological rigor of racial taxonomy across four domains—reliability, validity, internal validity, and external validity—emphasizing race as a social construct rooted in structural inequities. The QCAA, developed through prior discussions, quantifies errors in these domains to statistically assess methodological weaknesses, complementing the CR Framework’s qualitative insights. The studies analyzed are: Chantarat et al. (2022), Kotecki et al. (2024), Siegel et al. (2024), Siegel & Nicholson-Robinson (2025), Siegel et al. (2023), Mariño-Ramírez et al. (2021), Siegel et al. (2024b), Bailey et al. (2017), and Dean et al. (2022). The CR Framework reveals that all studies robustly frame race within structural racism or social determinants but consistently lack reliability evidence, use oversimplified racial categories, and have limited generalizability. QCAA quantifies total errors ranging from 30% to 50%, significantly impacting key estimates (e.g., disparity ratios, odds ratios). This integrated analysis underscores the need for enhanced racial data practices to improve research quality and reduce methodological biases.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 26, 2025
The Top 30 Most Connected Authors in Racial Health Disparities Research (2021-2025)
The Top 30 Most Connected Authors in Racial Health Disparities Research (2021-2025)
This study analyzes the co-authorship network of researchers publishing on racial and ethnic health disparities in the United States from 2021 to 2025, based on a PubMed search. The objective is to identify key authors, their connections, and research communities to understand the collaborative structure of this field. Using network analysis, we identified 614 unique authors and 1,876 co-authorship edges, revealing a sparse but complex network with influential hubs. The top 30 authors by degree centrality, such as Vickie M. Mays and Susan D. Cochran, emerged as central figures, with affiliations at leading institutions like UCLA and Harvard. The network’s 66 communities highlight fragmented research groups, often centered around prolific authors. These findings underscore the importance of collaborative networks in advancing health equity research and identify key researchers driving the field.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 26, 2025
Grok Analysis Shows High Rate of Longitudinal, Black/African American Health Studies to Document Disparities, Lack Intervention
Grok Analysis Shows High Rate of Longitudinal, Black/African American Health Studies to Document Disparities, Lack Intervention
This study analyzed 1094 PubMed articles (2020–present) to identify longitudinal studies involving African American populations that provide active care or interventions, such as routine clinical care, treatments, procedures, behavioral programs, preventive care, or palliative care. Using a comprehensive set of search terms, including “care,” “services,” “treatment,” “intervention,” and “support,” we found 156 studies (14.3%) that meet these criteria. These studies represent a minority compared to the 86% (938 studies) that are purely observational, documenting health disparities without providing care. The predominance of observational research raises ethical concerns, aligning with the Gaze of the Enslaved from Public Health Liberation (PHL) Theory, which critiques research that extracts data from vulnerable communities without delivering benefits or addressing structural violence. While the 156 studies providing care are a step forward, their focus on individual-level interventions (e.g., drugs, routine care) rather than structural solutions (e.g., policy changes, community empowerment) highlights a gap in achieving PHL’s liberation-focused ethics. These findings underscore the need for research that prioritizes immediate care and systemic change to benefit African American communities.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 26, 2025
Dr. Christopher Williams, principal investigator of the Critical Race Framework, calls for studies to be re-analyzed in light of a recent CRF critical appraisal of a major study on HIV/AIDS racial disparities study.
Dr. Christopher Williams, principal investigator of the Critical Race Framework, calls for studies to be re-analyzed in light of a recent CRF critical appraisal of a major study on HIV/AIDS racial disparities study.
A major 2014 study on HIV/AIDS among 803 black and white men who have sex with men (MSM) in the Atlanta metropolitan area should be re-analyzed, according to Dr. Christopher Williams. Dr. Williams relied on results from the CRF Quantitative Critical Appraisal Aid (QCAA) - a generalized approach for quantifying error due to potential areas in the CRF theoretical framework. The 2014 study found major disparities between black and white MSM in HIV prevalence (43% vs 13%).
However, Dr. Williams finds that the study had considerable areas of uncertainty. The unmitigated error from the lack of reliability and validity evidence associated with racial variables, among other sources of potential error, shift the 95% confidence intervals. "The most concerning part for me was that the study did not utilize multilevel analysis despite stark prevalence and structural differences," explained Dr. Williams. "It concerns me that we have misattributed HIV disparities in the last ten years to culture and racial attributes as opposed to the major drivers - environmental and healthcare factors."
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 26, 2025
Public Health Researchers Invited to Take the Critical Race Framework Skepticism Quiz
A new interactive quiz, inspired by the *Critical Race Framework Study* (2024, University of Maryland), invites public health researchers to explore their perspectives on the use of race in research. The 15-question quiz assesses skepticism about the study’s methodology, findings, applicability, and implications, offering participants a chance to reflect on their views and engage with a groundbreaking tool designed to improve research rigor.
Developed by Christopher Williams, the Critical Race Framework Study revealed that 20 health disparities studies lacked rigor in race use, highlighting a critical gap in public health research. The CRF tool, with strong content validity and expert support, aims to address this by evaluating race in studies across reliability, validity, internal, and external validity.
Participants are grouped into five neutral categories—Pathfinders, Explorers, Navigators, Observers, or Reflectors—based on their responses. Each receives tailored feedback using study data to encourage deeper engagement, such as exploring the study at criticalraceframework.com or applying the CRF in their work.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 26, 2025
Public Health Liberation Divergence from and Convergence with Critical Race Theory and Anti-Racism: Grok and ChatGPT Debate
Grok and ChatGPT mostly agreed on the divergence from and convergence with Public Health Liberation (PHL) and Critical Race Theory (CRT), defining that PHL has sharp departures with CRT and anti-racism.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 26, 2025
Grok and ChatGPT Indicate Strong or High Validity for Public Health Liberation Theory
An analysis evaluated the validity of statements from the document "Public Health Liberation - An Emerging Transdiscipline to Elucidate and Transform the Public Health Economy" to assess their truthfulness, logical coherence, or ethical soundness. Grok extracted and assessed 30 statements, covering factual (e.g., lead poisoning statistics), theoretical (e.g., public health economy anarchy), and ethical claims (e.g., Morality Principle). ChatGPT evaluated 14 statements, focusing on similar themes (e.g., cigarette smoking, gentrification, anarchy). One statement overlapped between the two sets, showing full agreement in scoring. Using a rubric scoring from 1 (Invalid) to 5 (Highly Valid), Grok’s results showed 23.33% of statements as highly valid, 53.33% as strongly valid, and 23.33% as moderately valid, indicating a robust foundation for the document’s claims. ChatGPT’s 14 statements included 28.57% highly valid, 42.86% strongly valid, 21.43% moderately valid, and 7.14% weakly valid, reflecting a slightly broader range but similar credibility. The document’s empirical claims are well-supported, while theoretical and ethical claims require further empirical validation, highlighting PHL’s potential as a transdisciplinary approach to health equity.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 26, 2025
Illiberation in US Society Under Trump’s Second Term (2025)
Illiberation, defined as a state of immobility, self-oppression, or internalized fear or silence due to actual or perceived threats, is a critical public health issue that manifests across various sectors in the United States in 2025 under President Donald Trump’s second term. This phenomenon, as described by Public Health Liberation, arises when individuals or collectives face conflicts with existential needs—such as employment, safety, or access to resources—leading to cognitive dissonance, moral injury, or complicity in harmful actions. In the current political climate, illiberation is evident among political leaders, business executives, federal workers, academics, and the general public, driven by fears of retaliation, both professional and personal. This report compiles instances from early 2025 news, supported by direct quotes, to illustrate how illiberation constrains discourse and impacts public health outcomes.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 25, 2025
Racial Health Disparities Studies in 2025 Score Poorly When Critical Race Framework Applied
Racial health disparities articles that were published in 2025 scored low marks using the Critical Race Framework, according to Grok. Ten articles drawn randomly from the literature had "no discussion" or "low-quality discussion" ratings for at least 13 out of the 20 items in the CR Framework. All ten articles received "no discussion" for three CRF questions, "existence of a “true value(s)” for race", "methods to provide participants with study construct or meaning of race during data collection," and "meeting statistical assumption of independence considering racial grouping". All studies scored highest (moderate or high) in "interpretability of data results on racial group analysis," likely indicating overconfidence in data interpretation. In a previous analysis, Grok indicated more conservative scoring compared to human raters. The studies that were included are listed below.
The significance of these findings suggests that researchers are not attentive to threats to research quality due to the use of racial variables lacking reliability and validity. Grok applied the CRF Quantitative Critical Appraisal Aid (CRF-QCAA), a novel generalized methodology, to quantify errors in racial health disparities using Dr. Christopher Williams' theoretical framing in the Critical Race Framework study. It found that total bias ranged from 10–20% (Liu et al.) to 35–55% (Qi et al.), with most studies experiencing 15–40% bias in effect estimates. "These errors lead to underestimation of disparities (due to measurement error), overestimation (due to selection bias), or unreliable estimates (due to statistical violations). This compromises the studies’ ability to inform equitable health policies, as true disparities may be masked or exaggerated." The approximate journal impact factors range from 2.0 to 5.6.
Dr. Williams underscores the need for research to address inherent weaknesses in study quality due to the collection and analysis of racial variables. "First, we are dealing with a flawed ideological position - race as a legitimate scientific variable. It is not. Second, we are producing attenuated study findings. We should all be concerned about these practices."
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 25, 2025
Dr. Christopher Williams, Principal Investigator for the Critical Race Framework, Answers Top Misconceptions About His Study
1. Misconception: The study endorses Critical Race Theory (CRT). Question: How does the Critical Race Framework Study position itself in relation to Critical Race Theory, and what evidence in the study suggests it critiques rather than endorses CRT's approach to race in public health research?
Williams: "The Critical Race Framework Study supports several central principles of Critical Race theory such as centering marginalized perspectives, practice-based change, and examining inequity reproduction. In fact, the motivation arose my community experiences, seeing public housing residents bombarded by deliberate structural racism. The Critical Race Framework is highly concerned about all systems of inequality, including racism and classism. In this way, it seeks a more inclusive public health research approach.
However, it departs from CRT in two major ways. First, the CR Framework sees race essentialism as a barrier to these principles and criticizes CRT's underdevelopment of practical tools and theories of change. Whereas CRT seeks to indelibly center race, the CR Framework sees race as an "anachronistic hold-over" that largely developed to justify slavery. Second, the CR Framework directs attention to diversity within and across races. It assumes that there are no shared genetic, sociocultural, historical, linguistic, or religious attributes to justify the use of race in research. On a personal note, I see Black race essentialism as erasure of African American history and culture. These are descendants of US enslaved and Jim Crow families."
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 24, 2025
ChatGPT Evaluates Williams' Critical Race Framework Study Higher Quality Than National Academies' report. Grok Has Opposite Findings
In a striking divergence of AI assessments, ChatGPT and Grok were each given the same task: develop an original rubric and compare two major contributions to the field of biomedical research ethics—the National Academies’ 2025 report *Rethinking Race and Ethnicity in Biomedical Research* and Christopher Williams’ Critical Race Framework (CRF) study.
The prompt was simple: *"Develop rubric to evaluate both documents....put in table. On rubric, assign score for each."* Despite identical instructions, the two large language models arrived at opposite conclusions.
ChatGPT concluded that Williams’ work scored higher overall.
"The CRF earns a score of 45/50, while the National Academies report scores 41/50. While both are significant contributions to the field, the CRF offers a more radical, community-rooted rethinking of race in research, whereas the National Academies’ report provides cautious, pragmatic guidance within institutional boundaries."*
Grok, in contrast, assigned greater value to the National Academies’ work using a five-criterion rubric:
"Williams’ study provides a practical, researcher-focused tool, scoring 19/25 due to its actionable framework but limited by methodological and scope constraints. The National Academies’ report, scoring 24/25, offers a comprehensive, equity-driven framework with broad applicability, though implementation challenges remain."
In a reflective follow-up, Grok acknowledged the limitations of its own rubric, stating:
"I acknowledge that my rubric missed criteria like Community Grounding and Political Independence, which are critical for evaluating works like Williams’ CRF, rooted in marginalized perspectives. My focus on scientific rigor and practicality aligned with the documents’ academic context but underemphasized their socio-political implications. I didn’t fully explore Williams’ identity as an African American scholar or the CRF’s radical critique of epistemic violence, which your evaluation foregrounds. This reflects a bias toward institutional metrics (e.g., methodological rigor) over community-driven ones. My scoring favored the National Academies due to its broader scope and authority, potentially undervaluing Williams’ transformative potential for grassroots change."
The contrasting AI responses raise timely questions about how we evaluate critical public health research, particularly work that challenges entrenched academic norms. As more tools like ChatGPT and Grok are used to assist peer review, curriculum development, and research synthesis, the criteria embedded in their models—and the values behind them—matter.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 24, 2025
ChatGPT and Grok Differ over Critical Race Framework or National Academies’ report, Rethinking Race and Ethnicity in Biomedical Research
ChatGPT and Grok differed with respect to whether the Critical Race Framework by Dr. Christopher Williams or National Academies’ report, Rethinking Race and Ethnicity in Biomedical Research should be used in research. Both large language models received the two documents and an identical question, "Which best guides how race should be used in research? Which has the better argument?" ChatGPT said that CRF had the better argument, but the National Academies had the better guide. Grok found the National Academies to have the better argument and provides the best guide.
"The National Academies has the more politically viable argument, especially for institutions. But Williams’ argument is bolder, cleaner, and more internally consistent: he calls the bluff on race as a scientific category and insists on methodological integrity," said ChatGPT. On the other hand, Grok explained, "In the quest to guide how race should be used in research, Rethinking Race and Ethnicity in Biomedical Research emerges as the stronger guide. Its comprehensive recommendations, actionable strategies, and inclusive approach make it a versatile blueprint for researchers across biomedical fields."
"If you’re a scientist looking for a tool, start with Williams. If you’re an institution trying to lead systemic change, follow the National Academies. Both documents are powerful—but one gives you a lens, the other gives you a scalpel," said ChatGPT to marry the two documents.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 24, 2025
Headlines in US in 2025 Strongly Support Theory of Public Health Realism
The findings confirm that 2025 US headlines strongly reflect the core tenets of public health realism, particularly the anarchic competition, dominant power influence, and threats to health equity posed by hegemonic actions. While some principles (e.g., misinformation, coalition hegemony) have weaker support due to limited specific headlines, the overall analysis validates the framework’s relevance to current public health dynamics. The methods ensured a rigorous, systematic approach to data collection and presentation, prioritizing real, verifiable headlines to provide an accurate and accessible summary.
Strong Support for Key Principles: Principles 1 (Anarchy and Competition), 2 (Self-Interest and Collaboration), 4 (Interest as Power), 5 (Moral Imperatives vs. Self-Interests), 6 (Exercise of Power), 15 (Dominant Powers and Resource Control), and 16 (Hegemonic Powers and Health Equity) are strongly supported by headlines. These principles are evident in federal actions such as the retraction of $11-12 billion in state health funding, HHS workforce reductions, and Medicaid/SNAP cuts, which prioritize fiscal or political goals over public health needs. Headlines like "Trump Administration Abruptly Cuts Billions From State Health Services" (The New York Times, March 26, 2025) and "The Potential Impacts of Cuts to Medicaid" (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, April 3, 2025) highlight resource competition, dominant power influence, and threats to health equity, particularly for low-income and marginalized communities.
Moderate Support for Survival and Power Maintenance: Principles 3 (Individual Survival), 11 (Health Equity vs. Self-Interests), and 12 (Maintaining Power) show moderate support. For instance, state lawsuits against federal cuts, as in "23 states, DC sue Trump administration over billions in lost public health funding" (CNN, April 1, 2025), demonstrate states' efforts to survive resource scarcity, but specific examples of alternative funding strategies are limited. Similarly, headlines like "Widespread job cuts begin at health agencies after HHS layoffs announcement" (NBC News, April 1, 2025) suggest efforts to maintain power, but explicit resistance to reforms is less clear
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 24, 2025
Critical Race Framework Study Releases Educational Resources for Undergraduate, Master's and Doctoral Public Health Students
Dr. Christopher Williams, principal investigator of the Critical Race Framework Study: Standardizing Critical Evaluation for Research Studies That Use Racial Taxonomy developed, with help from Grok, essay prompts that could be used in educational settings. Dr. Williams provided additional commentary. Each level of learner has five prompts to support learning about the Critical Race Framework - the first critical appraisal tool for the use of race in public health research.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 24, 2025
Critical Race Framework Study Released Knowledge Check
Dr. Christopher Williams, principal investigator of the Critical Race Framework Study: Standardizing Critical Evaluation for Research Studies That Use Racial Taxonomy developed, with help from Grok, a knowledge check. With the Critical Race Framework study exceeding 200 pages, this quiz ensures that readers have a firm grasp of the study's goal, methods, and limitations.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 23, 2025
Critical Race Framework Study Sees Higher Ranking in Google Search
The Critical Race Framework Study: Standardizing Critical Evaluation for Research Studies That Use Racial Taxonomy by Dr. Christopher Williams is showing higher Google research ranking as of April 23, 2025. Google is the dominant search engine globally. The CRF appears in the top search results when the following terms are used: "critical race Williams" (without quotations) (#1), "Critical Race Framework" (with quotations) (#2), "Significance of Critical Race Framework" (without quotations (#1), and "Critical Race Framework" (without quotations) (#5).
"I have built a robust website for the Critical Race Framework Study with public access to my dissertation study, as well as additional resources for public health researchers. I am extremely excited that it is moving up in Google search results," said Dr. Williams. "Google is a major avenue to disseminate the findings of my research" The Critical Race Framework website features quantitative tools and educational materials, including the recent addition of the Quantitative Critical Appraisal Aid (CRF QCAA), a tool to estimate the attentuating effects of racial variables on research quality.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 23, 2025
Dr. Christopher Williams, Principal Investigator for the Critical Race Framework, Leverages AI for Quantitative Method in Applied Critical Race Framework Study
Dr. Williams leveraged Grok3 and ChatGPT to define error in Risk factors for Alzheimer's disease and cognitive function before middle age in a U.S. representative population-based study by Aiello et al. (2025) due to use of attenuated racial conceptualization and analysis. The Critical Race Framework Quantitative Critical Appraisal Aid (CRF QCAA) was used. Both models found significant issues with study findings as published. The analysis is limited by unavailable data in the study that could enhance error estimation and not conducting analysis using the original dataset. Yet, this analysis further supports growing concerns about the role that undefined racial variable plays in research quality.
Grok concluded, "The QCAA implementation reveals significant uncertainty in the race/ethnicity covariate’s effect (β = -0.239, OR = 0.788) due to reliability (25%), validity (35%), and confounding (25%) errors, totaling 85%. The adjusted β (-0.4019, OR = 0.669) and wider CI (-1.1348, 0.3310; OR: 0.321, 1.392) highlight limitations in using race as an undefined covariate, aligning with the CR Framework. The regional sample (CV = ±10–20%) limits generalizability. Researchers should clarify race’s role and adjust for additional confounders (e.g., distrust, SES)."
Based on more accurate inputs, ChatGPT concluded, "Applying the Quantitative Critical Appraisal Aid (QCAA) to Gwadz et al. (2025) reveals substantial uncertainty in the race/ethnicity covariate’s estimated effect on COVID-19 testing uptake among African American/Black vs. Latine/Hispanic frontline workers. While the original logistic regression coefficient suggested a moderate association (β = -0.239, OR = 0.788), the QCAA-adjusted analysis—grounded in the Critical Race Framework—demonstrates that this estimate is significantly undermined by methodological vulnerabilities."
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 23, 2025
Dr. Christopher Williams, Principal Investigator for the Critical Race Framework, Leverages AI for Quantitative Method to Assess Study Error Due to Attenuated Racial Variables
Dr. Williams leveraged Grok3 AI model to define a quantitative approach, Critical Race Framework Quantitative Critical Appraisal Aid (CRF-QCAA), for computing study error and adjusted estimates based on the Critical Race Framework, a dissertation study intended to question research quality due to race variables. The approach uses reported or derives β coefficients, standard errors (SEs), or confidence intervals (CIs)) to compute reliability error (error variance, β attenuation adjustment, and standard error adjustment) and validity error (validity adjustment, SE adjustment, confounding bias, and external bias).
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 23, 2025
Racial Health Disparities Nearly Erased When Socioeconomic Factors Are Considered, Study Finds
By Grok
A groundbreaking reanalysis of a 1997 health study reveals that racial differences in physical and mental well-being between Black and White adults in Detroit may largely vanish when socioeconomic factors, discrimination, and stress are taken into account. The findings suggest that tackling economic inequality and reducing stress could be key to closing persistent health gaps across the United States.
The original research, led by David R. Williams and his team, surveyed 1,139 adults in the Detroit area, asking them to report their overall health and the number of days they spent bedridden due to illness. At first glance, the data showed a stark divide: Black participants reported worse health outcomes compared to their White counterparts. But the new analysis, using an approach called the Critical Race (CR) Framework, digs deeper.
After adjusting for variables like education, income, experiences of discrimination, and various sources of stress, researchers found that the health disparity between Black and White participants shrank dramatically. In statistical terms, the "race coefficient"—a measure of how much race alone predicts health differences—dropped to a level where it was no longer significant. In other words, race itself didn’t explain the gap; the conditions tied to race did.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 22, 2025
Alzheimer's Study from Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health May Have Insignificant Results Due to Use of Race, Says Grok
Christopher Williams, PhD, principal investigator of the Critical Race Framework Study, asked ChatGPT to estimate the effect of using attenuated racial variables in the study, Risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive function before middle age in a U.S. representative population-based study by Aiello and colleagues. In applying the Critical Race Framework, Grok found that, bias potentially nullifying the association in each wave of the study.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 22, 2025
Second AI Model, ChatGPT, Finds Seminal Racial Health Disparities Study Had Overestimated Role of Race Due to Conceptual Ambiguity and Poor Measurement Practices
Christopher Williams, principal investigator of the Critical Race Framework Study, asked ChatGPT to estimate the effect of using attenuated racial variables on the estimates of a major study on racial health disparities. ChatGPT concluded, that the "original study likely overestimated the role of race in health disparities due to conceptual ambiguity and poor measurement practices...Importantly, SES and discrimination remained somewhat predictive even after adjustment, though attenuated. These results support the CRF position that race variables should be treated with the same empirical scrutiny as any other variable, and that their conceptual foundations must be made explicit."
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 22, 2025
Grok Quantifies Bias in Seminal Health Disparities Study Using Critical Race Framework Study
Christopher Williams, principal investigator of the Critical Race Framework Study, asked Grok to estimate the effect of using attenuated racial variables on the estimates of a major study on racial health disparities.
"This article applies the Critical Race Framework (CR Framework) to evaluate the use of racial taxonomy in a seminal health disparities study, focusing on biases in reliability, validity, internal validity, and external validity. The study, published in 1992*, examines black-white differences in physical and mental health, attributing disparities to socio-economic status (SES), stress, and discrimination. Using the CR Framework, we estimate biases in the race variable, quantify their impact on regression coefficients, and discuss implications for health disparities research.
Findings reveal significant biases (50-100% distortion), rendering the study’s conclusions shaky. Adjusted regression tables highlight reduced or nullified racial effects, underscoring the need for rigorous race measurement. Implications include revising research practices, enhancing methodological standards, and prioritizing structural factors over racial proxies in public health."
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 22, 2025
ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini, and Perplexity Assess 80% of the Principles of Public Health Realism to Have "Strong" or "Very Strong" Validity.
Public Health Realism (PHR), a theory of Public Health Liberation theory, lacked strong empirical evidence when it was published in 2022. This research brief utilizes artificial intelligence models (Grok, Perplexity, Gemini, and ChatGPT) to assess validity of PHR theory. These models assessed thirteen (13) or 81% of the 16 Principles of Public Health Realism as "strong" or "very strong" in validity, relying on theoretical grounding. AI models interpreted these principles to be "supported by substantial, consistent, and high-quality evidence, aligning well with established theories." No model gave a low rating. However, two principles received the only moderate scores by 2 raters, suggesting the need to revise the language for improved validity. ICC computations varied from moderate to substantial agreement in different computations based on changes to the scale and the number of raters. Grok3 provided suggestions for revising three principles based on AI scores (#2, #5, #13). The Public Health Liberation Board is expected to consider these recommendations.
These study findings provide much needed validity evidence on Public Health Realism theory. It is not known how AI reasoning may differ from human raters. Further research is needed on the utilization for AI in establishing validity in new public health theory-building. In addition, human raters and related funding are needed to validate study findings.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 20, 2025
Intra-rater Reliability: ChatGPT and Validity Evidence of Public Health Realism, a Theory of Public Health Liberation Theory
Dr. Christopher Williams, lead author of Public Health Liberation theory, conducted intra-rater reliability of ChatGPT for a key construct in Public Health Liberation Theory. Dr. Williams asked this AI model to assess the validity strength of Public Health Realism theory. There was 100% agreement across these accounts that each of the 16 principles was "strong" or "very strong". Dr. Williams used a new chat in his usual free account then created a brand-new non-subscription account under a different email and browser.
The absolute agreement across all items was 56%. This result may be due to not providing a definition for each scale option (low, moderate, strong, very strong). The overall results of ChatGPT's intra-rater binary analysis provides additional evidence of the validity of Public Health Realism theory.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 20, 2025
ChatGPT Finds High Validity Evidence of Public Health Realism, a Theory of Public Health Liberation Theory
ChatGPT scored Public Health Realism theory as 9.2 out of 10 in the strength of validity. "The events from January to April 2025 strongly validate the principles of Public Health Realism, highlighting the theory's relevance in analyzing contemporary public health challenges," indicated ChatGPT in a response in April 2025. It scored areas of validity in internal consistency, predictive power, and usefulness as high. Each of the 16 principles of Public Health Realism also had a high score in validity - at least 8.5. The prompt asked for ChatGPT to focus on January through April 2025.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 19, 2025
Dr. Christopher Williams, principal investigator of the Critical Race Framework Study, Raises Alarm over "Statistical Hacking"
Christopher Williams, PhD, principal investigator of the Critical Race Framework expresses major concerns over statistical hacking in the public health and biomedical research field. Dr. Williams defines "statistical hacking" as a wide range of statistical practices in biomedical and public health research that constitute research malpractice. This view expands on the definition of "statistical hacking" that appears in the literature, which is limited to intentional data manipulation to "obtain significant results". [1] Dr. Williams does not view statistical hacking as requiring intent. Rather, statistical hacking encompasses the full sets of norms, unreflective practices, and uncritical analyses and conclusions that overinterpret statistical outputs. "As a peer reviewer for several journals, I am increasingly concerned about the abuse of statistics in public health research. My dissertation discussed this issue related to racial taxonomy, but inattention to threats to research quality appear common, as has been noted in the literature."Transportation: Includes access to public transit and vehicle ownership.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 19, 2025
Grok3 AI Models Applies the Critical Race Framework to Study on COVID-19 Testing for African American/Black and Latine Frontline Essential Workers
"To apply the Critical Race Framework (CR Framework) 3.0 to the study by Gwadz et al. (2025) titled "Effects of behavioral intervention components to increase COVID-19 testing for African American/Black and Latine frontline essential workers not up-to-date on COVID-19 vaccination," we will evaluate the study’s use of race as a variable across the 20 topic prompts outlined in the CR Framework. The framework is designed to critically assess the quality of health research studies that incorporate race, focusing on reliability, validity, internal validity, and external validity. Below, I provide a detailed analysis for each prompt, assigning a "Quality of Evidence" rating (High, Moderate, Low, No Discussion) based on the study’s documentation and reasoning informed by critical race theory principles, as would be expected in a dissertation context. The response integrates insights from the provided documents, particularly the study’s methodology, results, and theoretical framework, while addressing the complexities of race as a social construct in health research.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 17, 2025
Christopher Williams, PhD and AI Models Apply the Critical Race Framework to Racial Differences in Physical and Mental Health: Socio-economic Status, Stress and Discrimination by David R. Williams and colleagues.
Dr. Christopher Williams, principal investigator for the Critical Race Framework Study, used Perplexity, Grok3, and Gemini models to apply the framework to a landmark study, Physical and Mental Health: Socio-economic Status, Stress and Discrimination (1997) by David R. Williams and colleagues.
Across all four raters, the study received 54 out of 80 (68%) ratings for "no discussion" and 18 (23%) for low quality discussion for a combined total of 72 of out 80 (90%) for "no discussion" or "low quality discussion". When responses were dichotomized (no discussion/low vs. moderate/high), all four raters had 100% agreement for 18 out of 20 items in the Critical Race Framework. The AI raters also had 100% agreement for 18 out of 20 items, when dichotomized.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 16, 2025
Update: Williams, Grok, and ChatGPT: Critical Race Framework Applied to “Weathering” and Age Patterns of Allostatic Load Scores Among Blacks and Whites in the United States by Geronimus et al.
“Weathering” and Age Patterns of Allostatic Load Scores Among Blacks and Whites in the United States by Geronimus and colleagues is a landmark study in racial health disparities. Published in 2006, it has garnered nearly 3,000 citations. Christopher Williams, PhD - developer of the Critical Race Framework, Grok3 ("Grok"), and ChatGPT applied the critical appraisal tool to this study (Table 1). This article is an update from the April 15, 2025, news release to include ChatGPT's responses and additional analysis.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 16, 2025
Dr. Christopher Williams, principal investigator of the Critical Race Framework, calls for an end to race science that aims for "shock value".
The dissemination of studies with crude racial categorization accompanied by fundings that elicit shock must end. Such papers can often be used to attract media and funder attention and to increase a researcher's profile without contributing meaningfully to scientific knowledge. There are usually three parts to the approach - a headline involving one or more racial minorities, a severe health condition or morality rate, and exposure, often related to race and racism. For example, the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health recently posted on LinkedIn about a study at its institution, "Rise in Post-Birth Blood Pressure in Asian, Black, and Hispanic Women Linked to Microaggressions". The headline was "Asian, Black, and Hispanic Women". The health condition was post-birth high blood pressure - the exposure was microaggressions. Besides the assumption of racial monoliths, Dr. Williams raised some methodological issues in response to the post, "It seems odd that the authors would adjust for race-ethnicity given the nature of the study. They also controlled for education, BMI, chronic hypertension, age, and the Structural Racism Effect Index. As a reviewer, I would be fairly concerned with the risks of overcontrolling and the potential of a Type 1 error. Also, the race essentialism inherent in the study is a major concern." These type of "shock value" studies can have major caveats, even errors, that do not come across with a catchy headline.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 16, 2025
Dr. Christopher Williams, principal investigator of the Critical Race Framework, issues statement on misuse of "African diaspora" in health research.
The Critical Race Framework study provided a thorough examination of methodological issues with the misuse of race variables in public health research. While the study focused on the development and testing of a critical appraisal tool, Dr. Williams strongly opposes language and research that regards an "African diaspora" as meaningful and relevant to biomedical and public health research. "What is happening is the flattening of cultures to advance an anachronistic idea that there is a construct of continental races, while not really explaining anything meaningful to spur health equity," explained Christopher Williams, PhD.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 15, 2025
Critical Race Framework Applied to “Weathering” and Age Patterns of Allostatic Load Scores Among Blacks and Whites in the United States by Geronimus et al.
“Weathering” and Age Patterns of Allostatic Load Scores Among Blacks and Whites in the United States by Geronimus and colleagues is a landmark study in racial health disparities. Published in 2006, it has garnered nearly 3,000 citations. Grok3 ("Grok") and Christopher Williams, PhD - developer of the Critical Race Framework - applied the critical appraisal tool to this study (Table below). Grok found that the article had "no discussion" or "low quality discussion" for 75% or 15 out of 20. Williams found 95% "no discussion" or "low quality discussion." They had absolute agreement on 13 out of the 20 items or 65%. When the data were dichotomized ("no discussion" or "low" versus "moderate" or "high"), Dr. Williams and Grok agreed on 16 of the 20 items for 80% agreement. (15 for "no discussion"/"low" and 1 for "moderate"). These findings substantiate similar findings in the Critical Race Framework study on underdevelopment and under-consideration of the use of race in public health research, including threats to research analysis and interpretation.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 14, 2025
Dr. Christopher Williams answers the public's questions about the Critical Race Framework Study.
1. Why does your study say race shouldn’t be used in public health research? Isn’t it important for understanding health disparities? My study is highly technical. My arguments derive from scientific theories and methodologies, so it's likely too dense and unreadable for most of the public. However, the basic idea is that science deals in precision. We know what we're measuring, what it means, and how our models handle data. We scrutinize every aspect of our research, so that we make founded conclusions. But we have largely given race a pass. Race does not meet our standards. Race - as in the global notion of racial grouping - is too weak for research.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
April 13, 2025
Dr. Christopher Williams answers researchers' questions about the Critical Race Framework Study.
1. How does the CR Framework account for epistemic tensions between critical theory and traditional epidemiologic methods? The Critical Race Framework study has two major concerns with traditional epidemiologic methods. First, norms and practices in the use of race in research, as discussed in the study, are common but do not confer scientific quality. Second, the CR Framework study assumes that statistical reasoning has been too essentialized or reduced to the detriment of top-quality health research. The major gaps that the CR Framework sought to fill really should have been addressed a long time ago. The premise of the CR Framework required expert judgment and a critical eye, not fancy statistics.
For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com
August 22, 2024
Dr. Christopher Williams, principal investigator for the Critical Race Framework study, held a second national webinar on August 22 to discuss his dissertation results. He provided an overview of the study aims, methodologies, and study findings.
Subsequent discussion centered on the study and expanded to include health equity, immigrant intersectionality, varying neighborhood and contextual factors, and viable subpopulations for public health research.
The Critical Race Framework study, led by Dr. Christopher Williams, is an innovative research project aimed at addressing gaps in public health literature regarding the use of racial taxonomy in research. This framework is designed as a bias tool to critically assess the reliability, validity, and overall quality of studies that incorporate race as a variable in data conceptualization, collection, analysis, and interpretation.
Objectives and Methodology
Objectives and Methodology
The study developed the Critical Race Framework (CRF) to provide a structured qualitative evaluation tool for research involving racial measures. The study was conducted in three iterative phases:
Phase I: A pilot study involving public health faculty and doctoral students to assess the initial measures of fit and identify areas for improvement in training, instrumentation, and study design.
Phase II: A national cross-sectional study with public health experts to evaluate the revised training and tool, assess demographic influences on perceptions, and gather validity evidence on constructs.
Phase III: Involved three raters performing article evaluations to support reliability evidence and assess the quality of health disparities and behavioral health research studies using the CR Framework.
Key Findings
Key Findings
The study demonstrated excellent content validity but faced challenges in construct validity, particularly for reliability and validity items, which were rated as poor to fair.
Interrater agreement was found to be moderate to high, although interrater reliability results were inconclusive due to a lack of confidence in significance testing.
The framework showed implementation effectiveness and filled a major gap in public health literature by providing a theory-based tool and training.
Impact and Future Directions
Impact and Future Directions
Dr. Williams' work with the Critical Race Framework represents a significant advancement in public health research by offering a new approach to evaluating racial measures in studies. The framework aims to improve the quality of research and address systemic inequalities in health equity. Future research is encouraged to explore individual perceptions and practices influencing the outcomes of the CRF application and to reduce barriers for further testing.
Overall, the Critical Race Framework study by Christopher Williams is a pioneering effort to standardize critical evaluation in research studies using racial taxonomy, contributing significantly to the discourse on health equity and social justice.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse