Underrepresented populations in genomic research: a qualitative study of researchers’ perspectives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The lack of diversity in genomic data limits researchers' ability to investigate the relationships between genetic profiles, disease manifestations, and responses to new therapies. As a result, innovations in treatment could have potentially harmful effects on a significant portion of the population due to incomplete or inaccurate genomic data. In addition, the lack of harmonization in the use of population descriptors in genomic studies raises both ethical and scientific concerns regarding which descriptors should be used to study and recruit underrepresented populations. Therefore, understanding the factors contributing to the lack of diversity in genomic research is an urgent scientific, clinical, and public health priority. This study aims to explore the social and contextual factors influencing the participation of underrepresented populations in genomic research, from the perspective of researchers in the field. METHODS: A total of 13 semi-structured interviews were conducted with researchers experienced in genomic research in Canada and fluent in either French or English. The interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Researchers identified several factors contributing to the low participation of underrepresented populations in genomic research, with one key factor being the geographic distribution of research institutions and the disconnect between research efforts and the communities being studied. To address this issue, participants stressed the importance of moving away from colonial practices, such as conducting research on a community without consulting its members in the design phase. Furthermore, it was suggested that existing diversity, equity, and inclusion policies alone were insufficient to effectively address the challenge. Lastly, the study also highlighted a potential link between how study populations are categorized and the willingness of underrepresented groups to participate in genomic research. CONCLUSION: Although researchers are generally aware of the literature on the causes, consequences, and potential solutions for increasing participation, confusion remains regarding the use of population descriptors. Our findings highlight the need for improved education, greater consensus, and expanded dialogue within the genomic research community to promote the harmonization of population descriptors.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Open science Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it