Genomics for All: International Open Science Genomics Projects and Capacity Building in the Developing World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomic medicine applications have the potential to considerably improve health care in developing countries in the coming years. However, if developing countries do not improve their capacity for research and development (R&D) in the field, they might be left out of the genomics revolution. Large-scale and widely accessible databases for storing and analyzing genomic data are crucial tools for the advancement of genomic medicine. Building developing countries' capacity in genomics is accordingly closely linked to their involvement in international human genomics research initiatives. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a pilot study on the impact of international open science genomics projects on capacity building in R&D in developing countries. Using indicators we developed in previous work to measure the performance of international open science genomics projects, we analyse the policies and practices of four key projects in the field: the International HapMap Project, the Human Heredity and Health in Africa Initiative, the Malaria Genomic Epidemiology Network and the Structural Genomics Consortium. The results show that these projects play an important role in genomics capacity building in developing countries, but play a more limited role with regard to the potential redistribution of the benefits of research to the populations of these countries. We further suggest concrete initiatives that could facilitate the involvement of researchers from developing countries in the international genomics research community and accelerate capacity building in the developing world.
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 | 0.022 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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".