Cited by 386Race, Genetics, and SocietyEthics in Clinical ResearchGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

Prioritizing diversity in human genomics research

Open access
Hindorff, Lucia A., Bonham, Vence L., Brody, Lawrence C., Ginoza, Margaret E. C., Hutter, Carolyn M., Manolio, Teri A., Green, Eric D.·2018·Nature Reviews Genetics

Abstract

Recent studies have highlighted the imperatives of including diverse and under-represented individuals in human genomics research and the striking gaps in attaining that inclusion. With its multidecade experience in supporting research and policy efforts in human genomics, the National Human Genome Research Institute is committed to establishing foundational approaches to study the role of genomic variation in health and disease that include diverse populations. Large-scale efforts to understand biology and health have yielded key scientific findings, lessons and recommendations on how to increase diversity in genomic research studies and the genomic research workforce. Increased attention to diversity will increase the accuracy, utility and acceptability of using genomic information for clinical care.

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/nrg.2017.89

Cites

84 of 84 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?

  • Assessments of PRS across diverse populations are becoming increasingly feasible with the growth and public availability of global biobanks as well as diversifying priorities from funding agencies.

    “These assessments are becoming increasingly feasible with the growth and public availability of global bio banks as well as diversifying priorities from funding agencies55,56.”

    From Clinical use of current polygenic risk scores may exacerbate health disparities (2019) · cites this paper as [56]

    The sections on foundational genomic data resources and dedicated funding support describe expanding diverse reference datasets, benefits of publicly accessible reference populations, and funding programmes that prioritize diversity (page numbers unavailable). They do not specifically establish that global biobanks are growing and publicly available, or that these developments are making assessments of polygenic risk scores across populations increasingly feasible. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [24]National Human Genome Research Institute & National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities. Workshop on the use of race and ethnicity in genomics and biomedical research (Rockville, 2016).
  2. [54]National Center for Biotechnology Information. Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP). National Center for Biotechnology Information http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap (2017).
  3. [55]National Center for Biotechnology Information. ClinVar. National Center for Biotechnology Information https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar/ (2017).
  4. [95]Bonham V, Cornel M, Kaariainen H, Rotimi C & Robinson HM in European Society of Human Genetics 2017 Conference (Copenhagen, 2017).
  5. [99]Cirino AL & Ho C in GeneReviews® (eds Pagon RA et al.) (University of Washington, Seattle, 1993). 20301725
  6. [100]Petrucelli N, Daly MB & Pal T in GeneReviews® (eds Pagon RA et al.) (University of Washington, Seattle, 1993). 20301425

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hindorff, L. A., Bonham, V. L., Brody, L. C., Ginoza, M. E. C., Hutter, C. M., Manolio, T. A., & Green, E. D.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Hindorff, Lucia A.
Venue
Nature Reviews Genetics
Published
2017-11-20
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
175-185
ISSN
  • 1471-0056 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0064
OpenAlex
W2769205163
Cited by
386
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 25
FWCI
4.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99 HG999999, Z99 CA999999)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Race, Genetics, and Society
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
underrepresented groups, clinical genomics, research inclusion, National Human Genome Research Institute
MeSH terms
Human Genetics, Humans, Genetic Variation, Genome, Human, Genomics, Precision Medicine

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