ReviewJMIR bioinformatics and biotechnology2025
Genetic Diversity and Mutation Frequency Databases in Ethnic Populations: Systematic Review.
Review in JMIR bioinformatics and biotechnology, 2025. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: National and ethnic mutation frequency databases (NEMDBs) play a crucial role in documenting gene variations across populations, offering invaluable insights for gene mutation research and the advancement of precision medicine. These databases provide an essential resource for understanding genetic diversity and its implications for health and disease across different ethnic groups. Objective: The aim of this study is to systematically evaluate 42 NEMDBs to (1) quantify gaps in standardization (70% nonstandard formats, 50% outdated data), (2) propose artificial intelligence/linked open data solutions for interoperability, and (3) highlight clinical implications for precision medicine across NEMDBs. Methods: A systematic approach was used to assess the databases based on several criteria, including data collection methods, system design, and querying mechanisms. We analyzed the accessibility and user-centric features of each database, noting their ability to integrate with other systems and their role in advancing genetic disorder research. The review also addressed standardization and data quality challenges prevalent in current NEMDBs. Results: The analysis of 42 NEMDBs revealed significant issues, with 70% (29/42) lacking standardized data formats and 60% (25/42) having notable gaps in the cross-comparison of genetic variations, and 50% (21/42) of the databases contained incomplete or outdated data, limiting their clinical utility. However, databases developed on open-source platforms, such as LOVD, showed a 40% increase in usability for researchers, highlighting the benefits of using flexible, open-access systems. Conclusions: We propose cloud-based platforms and linked open data frameworks to address critical gaps in standardization (70% of databases) and outdated data (50%) alongside artificial intelligence-driven models for improved interoperability. These solutions prioritize user-centric design to effectively serve clinicians, researchers, and public stakeholders.
Indexed as
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.