Bridging genomics’ greatest challenge: The diversity gap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Achieving diverse representation in biomedical data is critical for healthcare equity. Failure to do so perpetuates health disparities and exacerbates biases that may harm patients with underrepresented ancestral backgrounds. We present a quantitative assessment of representation in datasets used across human genomics, including genome-wide association studies (GWASs), pharmacogenomics, clinical trials, and direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. We suggest that relative proportions of ancestries represented in datasets, compared to the global census population, provide insufficient representation of global ancestral genetic diversity. Some populations have greater proportional representation in data relative to their population size and the genomic diversity present in their ancestral haplotypes. As insights from genomics become increasingly integrated into evidence-based medicine, strategic inclusion and effective mechanisms to ensure representation of global genomic diversity in datasets are imperative.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".