Prepublication data sharing.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Toronto International Data Release Workshop Authors
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3073843 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Prepublication data sharing.
Birney Ewan E Hudson Thomas J TJ Green Eric D ED Gunter Chris C Eddy Sean S Rogers Jane J Harris Jennifer R JR Ehrlich S Dusko SD Apweiler Rolf R Austin Christopher P CP Berglund Lisa L Bobrow Martin M Bountra Chas C Brookes Anthony J AJ Cambon-Thomsen Anne A Carter Nigel P NP Chisholm Rex L RL Contreras Jorge L JL Cooke Robert M RM Crosby William L WL Dewar Ken K Durbin Richard R Dyke Stephanie O M SO Ecker Joseph R JR El Emam Khaled K Feuk Lars L Gabriel Stacey B SB Gallacher John J Gelbart William M WM Granell Antoni A Guarner Francisco F Hubbard Tim T Jackson Scott A SA Jennings Jennifer L JL Joly Yann Y Jones Steven M SM Kaye Jane J Kennedy Karen L KL Knoppers Bartha Maria BM Kyrpides Nikos C NC Lowrance William W WW Luo Jingchu J MacKay John J JJ Martín-Rivera Luis L McCombie W Richard WR McPherson John D JD Miller Linda L Miller Webb W Moerman Don D Mooser Vincent V Morton Cynthia C CC Ostell James M JM Ouellette B F Francis BF Parkhill Julian J Raina Parminder S PS Rawlings Christopher C Scherer Steven E SE Scherer Stephen W SW Schofield Paul N PN Sensen Christoph W CW Stodden Victoria C VC Sussman Michael R MR Tanaka Toshihiro T Thornton Janet J Tsunoda Tatsuhiko T Valle David D Vuorio Eero I EI Walker Neil M NM Wallace Susan S Weinstock George G Whitman William B WB Worley Kim C KC Wu Cathy C Wu Jiayan J Yu Jun J
Nature 20090901 7261
Rapid release of prepublication data has served the field of genomics well. Attendees at a workshop in Toronto recommend extending the practice to other biological data sets. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:In recent years, more and more health data are being generated. These data come not only from professional health systems, but also from wearable devices. All these 'big data' put together can be utilized to optimize treatments for each unique patient ('precision medicine'). For this to be possible, it is necessary that hospitals, academia and industry work together to bridge the 'valley of death' of translational medicine. However, hospitals and academia often are reluctant to share their data with other parties, even though the patient is actually the owner of his/her own health data. Academic hospitals usually invest a lot of time in setting up clinical trials and collecting data, and want to be the first ones to publish papers on this data. There are some publicly available datasets, but these are usually only shared after study (and publication) completion, which means a severe delay of months or even years before others can analyse the data. One solution is to incentivize the hospitals to share their data with (other) academic institutes and the industry. Here, we show an analysis of the current literature around data sharing, and we discuss five aspects of data sharing in the medical domain: publisher requirements, data ownership, growing support for data sharing, data sharing initiatives and how the use of federated data might be a solution. We also discuss some potential future developments around data sharing, such as medical crowdsourcing and data generalists.
| S-EPMC7246891 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Making data broadly accessible is essential to creating a medical information commons (MIC). Transparency about data-sharing practices can cultivate trust among prospective and existing MIC participants. We present an analysis of 34 initiatives sharing DNA-derived data based on public information. We describe data-sharing practices captured, including practices related to consent, privacy and security, data access, oversight, and participant engagement. Our results reveal that data-sharing initiatives have some distance to go in achieving transparency.
| S-EPMC6730666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Research transparency, reproducibility, and data sharing uphold core principles of science at a time when the integrity of scientific research is being questioned. This article discusses how research data in psychology can be made accessible for reproducibility and reanalysis by describing practical ways to overcome barriers to data sharing. We examine key issues surrounding the sharing of data such as who owns research data, how to protect the confidentiality of the research participant, how to give appropriate credit to the data creator, how to deal with metadata and codebooks, how to address provenance, and other specifics such as versioning and file formats. The protection of research subjects is a fundamental obligation, and we explain frameworks and procedures designed to protect against the harms that may result from disclosure of confidential information. We also advocate greater recognition for data creators and the authors of program code used in the management and analysis of data. We argue that research data and program code are important scientific contributions that should be cited in the same way as publications. (PsycINFO Database Record
| S-EPMC5967383 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5718357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Accessing BRCA1/2 data facilitates the detection of disease-associated variants, which is critical to informing clinical management of risks. BRCA1/2 data sharing is complex and many practices exist. We describe current BRCA1/2 data-sharing practices, in the United States and globally, and discuss obstacles and incentives to sharing, based on 28 interviews with personnel at U.S. and non-U.S. clinical laboratories and databases. Our examination of the BRCA1/2 data-sharing landscape demonstrates strong support for and robust sharing of BRCA1/2 data around the world, increasing global accesses to diverse data sets.
| S-EPMC6748872 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many policies and projects now encourage investigators to share their raw research data with other scientists. Unfortunately, it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of these initiatives because data can be shared in such a variety of mechanisms and locations. We propose a novel approach to finding shared datasets: using NLP techniques to identify declarations of dataset sharing within the full text of primary research articles. Using regular expression patterns and machine learning algorithms on open access biomedical literature, our system was able to identify 61% of articles with shared datasets with 80% precision. A simpler version of our classifier achieved higher recall (86%), though lower precision (49%). We believe our results demonstrate the feasibility of this approach and hope to inspire further study of dataset retrieval techniques and policy evaluation.
| S-EPMC2655927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:MotivationTechnical advances have revolutionized the life sciences and researchers commonly face challenges associated with handling large amounts of heterogeneous digital data. The Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) principles provide a framework to support effective data management. However, implementing this framework is beyond the means of most researchers in terms of resources and expertise, requiring awareness of metadata, policies, community agreements and other factors such as vocabularies and ontologies.ResultsWe have developed the Globally Accessible Distributed Data Sharing (GADDS) platform to facilitate FAIR-like data-sharing in cross-disciplinary research collaborations. The platform consists of (i) a blockchain-based metadata quality control system, (ii) a private cloud-like storage system and (iii) a version control system. GADDS is built with containerized technologies, providing minimal hardware standards and easing scalability, and offers decentralized trust via transparency of metadata, facilitating data exchange and collaboration. As a use case, we provide an example implementation in engineered living material technology within the Hybrid Technology Hub at the University of Oslo.Availability and implementationDemo version available at https://github.com/pavelvazquez/GADDS.Supplementary informationSupplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
| S-EPMC9344842 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe benefits of responsible sharing of individual-participant data (IPD) from clinical studies are well recognized, but stakeholders often disagree on how to align those benefits with privacy risks, costs, and incentives for clinical trialists and sponsors. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) required a data sharing statement (DSS) from submissions reporting clinical trials effective July 1, 2018. The required DSSs provide a window into current data sharing rates, practices, and norms among trialists and sponsors.ObjectiveTo evaluate the implementation of the ICMJE DSS requirement in 3 leading medical journals: JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).Design, setting, and participantsThis is a cross-sectional study of clinical trial reports published as articles in JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM between July 1, 2018, and April 4, 2020. Articles not eligible for DSS, including observational studies and letters or correspondence, were excluded. A MEDLINE/PubMed search identified 487 eligible clinical trials in JAMA (112 trials), Lancet (147 trials), and NEJM (228 trials). Two reviewers evaluated each of the 487 articles independently.ExposurePublication of clinical trial reports in an ICMJE medical journal requiring a DSS.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes of the study were declared data availability and actual data availability in repositories. Other captured outcomes were data type, access, and conditions and reasons for data availability or unavailability. Associations with funding sources were examined.ResultsA total of 334 of 487 articles (68.6%; 95% CI, 64%-73%) declared data sharing, with nonindustry NIH-funded trials exhibiting the highest rates of declared data sharing (89%; 95% CI, 80%-98%) and industry-funded trials the lowest (61%; 95% CI, 54%-68%). However, only 2 IPD sets (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.0%-1.5%) were actually deidentified and publicly available as of April 10, 2020. The remaining were supposedly accessible via request to authors (143 of 334 articles [42.8%]), repository (89 of 334 articles [26.6%]), and company (78 of 334 articles [23.4%]). Among the 89 articles declaring that IPD would be stored in repositories, only 17 (19.1%) deposited data, mostly because of embargo and regulatory approval. Embargo was set in 47.3% of data-sharing articles (158 of 334), and in half of them the period exceeded 1 year or was unspecified.Conclusions and relevanceMost trials published in JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM after the implementation of the ICMJE policy declared their intent to make clinical data available. However, a wide gap between declared and actual data sharing exists. To improve transparency and data reuse, journals should promote the use of unique pointers to data set location and standardized choices for embargo periods and access requirements.
| S-EPMC7844597 | biostudies-literature