Cited by 1,924Race, Genetics, and SocietyGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyEthics in Clinical Research

Genomics is failing on diversity

Open access
Popejoy, Alice B., Fullerton, Stephanie M.·2016·Nature

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/538161a

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Poor generalizability of genetic studies across populations arises from the overwhelming abundance of European descent studies and dearth of well-powered studies in globally diverse populations.

    “Poor generalizability of genetic studies across populations arises from the overwhelming abundance of European descent studies and dearth of well-powered studies in globally diverse populations25–28.”
  • Because most genome-wide association studies have been conducted in populations with European ancestry, the effect sizes used in calculating polygenic scores have been calibrated on Europeans, and their values might not transfer accurately to other populations.

    “So far, because most genome-wide association studies have been conducted in populations with European ancestry [33], the effect sizes used in calculating polygenic scores have been calibrated on Europeans, and their values might not transfer accurately to other populations.”
  • 81% of GWAS studies are conducted in individuals of European ancestry.

    “Although polygenic risk scores have a great potential as predictive biomarkers, 81% of GWAS studies are conducted in individuals of European ancestry.31”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Popejoy, A. B., & Fullerton, S. M.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
  • Popejoy, Alice B.
  • Fullerton, Stephanie M.
Venue
Nature
Published
2016-10-12
Volume
538
Issue
7624
Pages
161-164
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2531587846
Cited by
1,924
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 211 · 2025: 209 · 2024: 182 · 2023: 249 · 2022: 250 · 2021: 269 · 2020: 176 · 2019: 168 · 2018: 137 · 2017: 62 · 2016: 8
FWCI
101.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5p50hg003374-10)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (P50-HG003374, U01HG007307, U01HG006507)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM081062)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (T15LM007442)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Race, Genetics, and Society
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
population diversity, genomics, precision medicine, underrepresented groups, genetic ancestry, health disparities
MeSH terms
Humans, Genetic Variation, Genomics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review