ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2025
Methodological opportunities in genomic data analysis to advance health equity.
Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ancestral diversity in complex disease genetics: from discovery to translation.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Identification and Validation of Novel Combinatorial Genetic Risk Factors for Endometriosis across Multiple UK and US Patient Cohorts.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Why genomic diversity should not be framed by census alone.Nature genetics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The causes and consequences of inequities in genomic research and medicine are complex and widespread. However, it is widely acknowledged that underrepresentation of diverse populations in human genetics research risks exacerbating existing health disparities. Efforts to improve diversity are ongoing, but an often-overlooked source of inequity is the choice of analytical methods used to process, analyse and interpret genomic data. This choice can influence all areas of genomic research, from genome-wide association studies and polygenic score development to variant prioritization and functional genomics. New statistical and machine learning techniques to understand, quantify and correct for the impact of biases in genomic data are emerging within the wider genomic research and genomic medicine ecosystems. At this crucial time point, it is important to clarify where improvements in methods and practices can, or cannot, have a role in improving equity in genomics. Here, we review existing approaches to promote equity and fairness in statistical analysis for genomics, and propose future methodological developments that are likely to yield the most impact for equity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40369311What 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.