ReviewHuman genetics2023
Demographic diversity of genetic databases used in Alzheimer's disease research.
Review in Human genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Editorial for the Neurogenetics and Neurogenomics special issue.Human genetics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For several years, experts have warned about the lack of diversity in genetic research databases, and researchers have devoted time and resources to recruiting subjects from underrepresented subgroups. In this study, we review published reports in academic journals of genetic studies of Alzheimer's disease to note whether demographic diversity was indicated in the reports and, if so, the extent of representation of non-European subjects over the period from 1997 to 2022. We use multivariate regression analysis to analyze changes over time and to explain variation across studies. Our analysis indicates that reported diversity has not changed over time. Rather, it appears to have remained relatively constant, since Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWASs) were first used in the 1990s. We find most variation to be across journals rather than within journals, suggesting that characteristics of journals are an important influence on the dissemination of research with diverse samples. Lack of racial diversity in genetic databases used to develop clinical applications could lead to disparities in the effectiveness of those applications for underrepresented groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37093293What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.