Disparities and trends in global representation of human genetics conferences: a 26-year longitudinal study of ASHG and ESHG
Zheng, H.; Wang, Y.; Tanigawa, Y.; Ong, J. S.; MacGregor, S.; Liang, L.; Kellis, M.; Han, X.
Show abstract
Equity in human genetics research requires balanced participation not only from study participants from global populations but also from the researchers who drive the science. While disparities among research participants across ancestries and countries have been well studied, the representation and disparities of researchers themselves on the global stage remains poorly understood. Here, we analyzed over 100,000 abstracts presented at two leading annual conferences in the field, the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), from 1999 to 2024 to assess trends and geographic disparities. North America and Europe consistently dominated abstract contributions, whereas continents such as Africa, Oceania, and East Asia remained underrepresented, despite gradual increases in participation. The imbalance was even more pronounced in oral presentation: at ASHG, abstracts from North America were approximately 4 times more likely to be selected for talks than those from East Asia and 23 times more likely than those from South America; at ESHG, Europes advantage was 2 times and 9 times, respectively. Notably, Oceania had the highest relative success in oral presentation, with a ratio 5 times higher than East Asia and 29 times higher than South America in ASHG, and 8 times and 33 times higher, respectively, in ESHG. To explore potential drivers of these disparities, we examined 6 national level variables. The multivariable regression model indicated that GDP is the primary factor for abstract, while Nature Index Share is the main factor for oral presentation counts. Our findings highlight persistent global inequalities in representation of human geneticists at premier conferences. Greater international support and targeted initiatives are needed to promote more equitable worldwide involvement in human genetics.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Digitalization impacts the COVID-19 pandemic and the stringency of government measures 90%
- The demographic and geographic impact of the COVID pandemic in Bulgaria and Eastern Europe in 2020 90%
- “What’s in a name?”: Using mpox as a case study to understand the importance of communication, advocacy, and information accuracy in disease nomenclature 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Rigor and Transparency Index, a new metric of quality for assessing biological and medical science methods. 91%
- A Chinese host genetic study discovered type I interferons and causality of cholesterol levels and WBC counts on COVID-19 severity 90%
- Continuous population-level monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in a large metropolitan region 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Utilizing Non-Invasive Prenatal Test Sequencing Data Resource for Human Genetic Investigation 89%
- Genomic Insights into the Demographic History and Local Adaptation of Wild Boars Across Eurasia 89%
- Multi-trait genome-wide association study in 34,394 Chinese women reveals the genetic architecture of plasma metabolites during pregnancy 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Endogamy and high prevalence of deleterious mutations in India: evidence from strong founder events 90%
- Distinguished biological adaptation architecture aggravated population differentiation of Tibeto-Burman-speaking people inferred from 500 whole genome data from 39 populations 89%
- Integrated analysis and systematic characterization of the regulatory network for human germline development 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.