ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Assessing the lack of diversity in genetics research across neurodegenerative diseases: a systematic review of the GWAS Catalog and literature.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
15 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: The under-representation of participants with non-European ancestry in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) is a critical issue that has significant implications, including hindering the progress of precision medicine initiatives. This issue is particularly significant in the context of neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs), where current therapeutic approaches have shown limited success. Addressing this under-representation is crucial to harnessing the full potential of genomic medicine in underserved communities and improving outcomes for NDD patients. Objective: Our primary objective was to assess the representation of non-European ancestry participants in genetic discovery efforts related to NDDs. We aimed to quantify the extent of inclusion of diverse ancestry groups in NDD studies and determine the number of associated loci identified in more inclusive studies. Specifically, we sought to highlight the disparities in research efforts and outcomes between studies predominantly involving European ancestry participants and those deliberately targeting non-European or multi-ancestry populations across NDDs. Evidence Review: We conducted a systematic review utilizing existing GWAS results and publications to assess the inclusion of diverse ancestry groups in neurodegeneration and neurogenetics studies. Our search encompassed studies published up to the end of 2022, with a focus on identifying research that deliberately included non-European or multi-ancestry cohorts. We employed rigorous methods for the inclusion of identified articles and quality assessment. Findings: Our review identified a total of 123 NDD GWAS. Strikingly, 82% of these studies predominantly featured participants of European ancestry. Endeavors specifically targeting non-European or multi-ancestry populations across NDDs identified only 52 risk loci. This contrasts with predominantly European studies, which reported over 90 risk loci for a single disease. Encouragingly, over 65% of these discoveries occurred in 2020 or later, indicating a recent increase in studies deliberately including non-European cohorts. Conclusions and relevance: Our findings underscore the pressing need for increased diversity in neurodegenerative research. The significant under-representation of non-European ancestry participants in NDD GWAS limits our understanding of the genetic underpinnings of these diseases. To advance the field of neurodegenerative research and develop more effective therapies, it is imperative that future investigations prioritize and harness the genomic diversity present within and across global populations.
Identifiers
What 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.