CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 273Ethics in Clinical ResearchRace, Genetics, and SocietyHealth disparities and outcomes

Diversity and inclusion for the All of Us research program: A scoping review

Open access
Mapes, Brandy M., Foster, Christopher S., Kusnoor, Sheila V., Epelbaum, Marcia I., AuYoung, Mona, Jenkins, Gwynne, Lopez-Class, Maria, Richardson-Heron, Dara +9 more·2020·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0234962PMC PMC7329113
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The All of Us Research Program (All of Us) is a national effort to accelerate health research by exploring the relationship between lifestyle, environment, and genetics. It is set to become one of the largest research efforts in U.S. history, aiming to build a national resource of data from at least one million participants. All of Us aims to address the need for more diversity in research and set the stage for that diversity to be leveraged in precision medicine research to come. This paper describes how the program assessed demographic characteristics of participants who have enrolled in other U.S. biomedical research cohorts to better understand which groups are traditionally represented or underrepresented in biomedical research. We 1) reviewed the enrollment characteristics of national cohort studies like All of Us, and 2) surveyed the literature, focusing on key diversity categories essential to the program's enrollment aims. Based on these efforts, All of Us emphasizes enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities, and has formally designated the following additional groups as historically underrepresented: individuals-with inadequate access to medical care; under the age of 18 or over 65; with an annual household income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level; who have a cognitive or physical disability; have less than a high school education or equivalent; are intersex; identify as a sexual or gender minority; or live in rural or non-metropolitan areas. Research accounting for wider demographic variability is critical. Only by ensuring diversity and by addressing the very barriers that limit it, can we position All of Us to better understand and tackle health disparities.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0234962

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • The All of Us Research Program has enrolled about 400,000 diverse participants of the 1 million people planned across the USA, and is focused on enrolling individuals from broadly defined underrepresented groups in biomedical research.

    “The All of Us Research Program 90 constitutes another novel and ambitious initiative by the NIH that has enrolled about 400,000 diverse participants of the 1 million people planned across the USA, and is focused on enrolling individuals from broadly defined underrepresented groups in biomedical research, which is especially needed in medical AI 91,92 .”

    From Multimodal biomedical AI (2022) · cites this paper as [91]

    The Introduction identifies All of Us as an NIH-funded U.S. program aiming for at least one million participants, and the Abstract and Results describe its emphasis on enrolling broadly defined underrepresented groups. Neither passage reports that about 400,000 participants had enrolled; a search for that figure and enrollment totals found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [55]Mitchell M, Howarth C, Kotecha M, Kreegan C. Sexual orientation research review 2008. Equality and Human Rights Commission; 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mapes, B. M., Foster, C. S., Kusnoor, S. V., Epelbaum, M. I., AuYoung, M., Jenkins, G., Lopez-Class, M., Richardson-Heron, D., Elmi, A., Surkan, K., Cronin, R. M., Wilkins, C. H., Pérez-Stable, E. J., Dishman, E., Denny, J. C., Rutter, J. L., & Program, T. A. O. U. R.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Scripps Health (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
  • Mapes, Brandy M.
  • Rutter, Joni L.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2020-07-01
Volume
15
Issue
7
Pages
e0234962
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0234962
PMC
PMC7329113
OpenAlex
W3038167169
Cited by
273
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 1
FWCI
21.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • NIH Office of the Director (U2COD023196, OT2OD023132, U24 OD023176)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR002550)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Race, Genetics, and Society
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
All of Us, research participant diversity, underrepresented groups, racial and ethnic minorities, health disparities, precision medicine, socioeconomic status, disability, sexual and gender minorities, rural population, health care access, health equity
MeSH terms
Population Health, Demography, Ethnicity, Female, Humans, Male, Minority Groups, United States, Cohort Studies, Cultural Diversity, Biomedical Research, Racial Groups, 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