Global Biobank Meta-analysis Initiative: powering genetic discovery across human diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Biobanks are being established across the world to understand the genetic, environmental, and epidemiological basis of human diseases with the goal of better prevention and treatments. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been very successful at mapping genomic loci for a wide range of human diseases and traits, but in general, lack appropriate representation of diverse ancestries - with most biobanks and preceding GWAS studies composed of individuals of European ancestries. Here, we introduce the Global Biobank Meta-analysis Initiative (GBMI) -- a collaborative network of 19 biobanks from 4 continents representing more than 2.1 million consented individuals with genetic data linked to electronic health records. GBMI meta-analyzes summary statistics from GWAS generated using harmonized genotypes and phenotypes from member biobanks. GBMI brings together results from GWAS analysis across 6 main ancestry groups: approximately 33,000 of African ancestry either from Africa or from admixed-ancestry diaspora (AFR), 18,000 admixed American (AMR), 31,000 Central and South Asian (CSA), 341,000 East Asian (EAS), 1.4 million European (EUR), and 1,600 Middle Eastern (MID) individuals. In this flagship project, we generated GWASs from across 14 exemplar diseases and endpoints, including both common and less prevalent diseases that were previously understudied. Using the genetic association results, we validate that GWASs conducted in biobanks worldwide can be successfully integrated despite heterogeneity in case definitions, recruitment strategies, and baseline characteristics between biobanks. We demonstrate the value of this collaborative effort to improve GWAS power for diseases, increase representation, benefit understudied diseases, and improve risk prediction while also enabling the nomination of disease genes and drug candidates by incorporating gene and protein expression data and providing insight into the underlying biology of the studied traits.
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 | 0.247 | 0.384 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".