Genomics in healthcare: GA4GH looks to 2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH), the standards-setting body in genomics for healthcare, aims to accelerate biomedical advancement globally. We describe the differences between healthcare- and research-driven genomics, discuss the implications of global, population-scale collections of human data for research, and outline mission-critical considerations in ethics, regulation, technology, data protection, and society. We present a crude model for estimating the rate of healthcare-funded genomes worldwide that accounts for the preparedness of each country for genomics, and infers a progression of cancer-related sequencing over time. We estimate that over 60 million patients will have their genome sequenced in a healthcare context by 2025. This represents a large technical challenge for healthcare systems, and a huge opportunity for research. We identify eight major practical, principled arguments to support the position that virtual cohorts of 100 million people or more would have tangible research benefits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.056 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".