Health Equity Informative Metrics (HEIM): A Framework for Quantifying Global Biobank Research Equity
Corpas, M.
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 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Maternal and perinatal health research during emerging and ongoing epidemic threats: a landscape analysis and expert consultation 92%
- State of the evidence: a survey of global disparities in clinical trials 92%
- The remaining unknowns: A mixed methods study of the current and global health research priorities for COVID-19 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- NIH Funding of COVID-19 Research in 2020: a Cross Sectional Study 91%
- Evidence of integrated health service delivery during COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a scoping review 91%
- Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open-access publishing each year 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Lifetime Risk of Maternal Near Miss morbidity in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America: a cross-country systematic analysis 91%
- Global state of deworming coverage and inequity in low-income and middle-income countries: a spatiotemporal study of household health surveys 90%
- HIV incidence among women engaging in sex work in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis 89%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.