Back

Health Equity Informative Metrics (HEIM): A Framework for Quantifying Global Biobank Research Equity

Corpas, M.

2026-01-05 health policy
10.64898/2026.01.04.26343419
Show abstract

BackgroundDespite representing approximately 85% of the global population, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) contribute less than 10% of participants to genome-wide association studies and biobank research. This disparity has profound implications for the generalisability of precision medicine. However, no standardised framework exists to quantify research equity at the biobank level or track progress over time. MethodsWe developed the Health Equity Informative Metrics (HEIM) framework to quantify alignment between biobank research output and global disease burden. We analysed 75,356 PubMed-indexed publications (2000-2025) from 27 biobanks across 19 countries, mapping each to 179 disease categories from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. We calculated disease-specific Gap Scores measuring the mismatch between burden (disability-adjusted life years, DALYs) and research attention, biobank-level Equity Alignment Scores (EAS), and regional equity ratios comparing high-income (HIC) to LMIC research intensity. FindingsWithin our 27-biobank sample, HIC biobanks produced substantially higher research output per DALY compared to LMIC biobanks (ratio: 322:1; sensitivity analyses: >100:1 across methodological variations). Regional concentration was marked: the Americas and Europe accounted for 97.8% of publications, while Africa, Eastern Mediterranean, and South-East Asia combined contributed <1%. Of 179 disease categories, 23 (13%) exhibited critical or high-severity research gaps despite substantial global burden. Only 4 of 27 biobanks (15%) achieved Strong or Moderate equity alignment scores; 19 (70%) were rated Poor. Six disease categories showed critical gaps, including drowning (15.7 million DALYs, 0 mapped publications) and iodine deficiency (2.3 million DALYs, 10 publications). InterpretationThe HEIM framework reveals substantial disparities in how biobank research capacity is distributed relative to global disease burden. While the precise equity ratio varies with sample selection and methodology, the fundamental pattern of profound inequity is robust across reasonable analytical choices. These findings provide baseline measurements for tracking progress toward more equitable genomic research and identify high-priority targets for intervention.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 49%
10.5%
2
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 15%
7.8%
3
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 12%
6.6%
4
JAMA Network Open
based on 125 papers
Top 2%
5.5%
5
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 33%
5.5%
6
BMJ Global Health
based on 95 papers
Top 4%
4.6%
7
eLife
based on 262 papers
Top 7%
3.0%
8
The Lancet Global Health
based on 24 papers
Top 0.7%
3.0%
9
Nature Medicine
based on 88 papers
Top 4%
2.5%
10
European Journal of Epidemiology
based on 36 papers
Top 0.5%
2.5%
50% of probability mass above
11
BMC Medicine
based on 155 papers
Top 9%
2.4%
12
Nutrients
based on 43 papers
Top 2%
2.4%
13
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
based on 54 papers
Top 2%
2.3%
14
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
based on 53 papers
Top 4%
1.9%
15
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
based on 23 papers
Top 0.8%
1.6%
16
PLOS Biology
based on 14 papers
Top 0.1%
1.6%
17
Nature
based on 58 papers
Top 5%
1.6%
18
JAMA
based on 17 papers
Top 0.3%
1.6%
19
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
based on 115 papers
Top 10%
1.6%
20
International Journal of Epidemiology
based on 65 papers
Top 6%
1.4%
21
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
based on 29 papers
Top 1%
1.4%
22
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
based on 124 papers
Top 7%
1.4%
23
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
based on 100 papers
Top 9%
1.4%
24
BMC Medical Research Methodology
based on 41 papers
Top 4%
1.2%
25
EClinicalMedicine
based on 21 papers
Top 1%
0.8%
26
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
based on 11 papers
Top 1%
0.8%
27
The American Journal of Human Genetics
based on 77 papers
Top 6%
0.8%
28
BMC Public Health
based on 148 papers
Top 21%
0.8%
29
Frontiers in Medicine
based on 99 papers
Top 18%
0.8%
30
Communications Medicine
based on 63 papers
Top 4%
0.7%