Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40369311›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2025

Methodological opportunities in genomic data analysis to advance health equity.

Brieuc Lehmann, Leandra Bräuninger, Yoonsu Cho, Fabian Falck, Smera Jayadeva, Michael Katell, Thuy Nguyen, Antonella Perini, Sam Tallman, Maxine Mackintosh and 5 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Brieuc LehmannDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK. b.lehmann@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7302-4391
Leandra BräuningerDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-5137-0217
Yoonsu ChoGenomics England, London, UK.
Fabian FalckThe Alan Turing Institute, London, UK.
Smera JayadevaThe Alan Turing Institute, London, UK.
Michael KatellThe Alan Turing Institute, London, UK.
Thuy NguyenGenomics England, London, UK.
Antonella PeriniThe Alan Turing Institute, London, UK.
Sam TallmanGenomics England, London, UK.
Maxine MackintoshThe Alan Turing Institute, London, UK.
Matt SilverGenomics England, London, UK.
Karoline Kuchenbäcker *Genomics England, London, UK.
David Leslie *The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK.
Nilanjan Chatterjee *Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9060-008X
Chris Holmes *Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

GenomicsHealth EquityGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansMachine Learning

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.