DbGaP data access requests: a call for greater transparency.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Walker L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3432400 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
dbGaP data access requests: a call for greater transparency.
Walker Lorelei L Starks Helene H West Kathleen M KM Fullerton Stephanie M SM
Science translational medicine 20111201 113
The scientific and public health benefits of mandatory data-sharing mechanisms must be actively demonstrated. To this end, we manually reviewed 2724 data access requests approved between June 2007 and August 2010 through the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information database of genotypes and phenotypes (dbGaP). Our analysis demonstrates that dbGaP enables a wide range of secondary research by investigators from academic, governmental, and nonprofit and for-profit institutions in the Uni ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) Data Browser (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap/ddb/) was developed in response to requests from the scientific community for a resource that enable view-only access to summary-level information and individual-level genotype and sequence data associated with phenotypic features maintained in the controlled-access tier of dbGaP. Until now, the dbGaP controlled-access environment required investigators to submit a data access request, wait for Data Access Committee review, download each data set and locally examine them for potentially relevant information. Existing unrestricted-access genomic data browsing resources (e.g. http://evs.gs.washington.edu/EVS/, http://exac.broadinstitute.org/) provide only summary statistics or aggregate allele frequencies. The dbGaP Data Browser serves as a third solution, providing researchers with view-only access to a compilation of individual-level data from general research use (GRU) studies through a simplified controlled-access process. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will continue to improve the Browser in response to user feedback and believes that this tool may decrease unnecessary download requests, while still facilitating responsible genomic data-sharing.
| S-EPMC5210596 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) is a multistakeholder initiative quickly constructed in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic to respond to a catastrophic breakdown in global cooperation. ACT-A is now the largest international effort to achieve equitable access to COVID-19 health technologies, and its governance is a matter of broad public importance. We traced the evolution of ACT-A's governance through publicly available documents and analysed it against three principles embedded in the founding mission statement of ACT-A: participation, transparency, and accountability. We found three challenges to realising these principles. First, the roles of the various organisations in ACT-A decision making are unclear, obscuring who might be accountable to whom and for what. Second, the absence of a clearly defined decision making body; ACT-A instead has multiple centres of legally binding decision making and uneven arrangements for information transparency, inhibiting meaningful participation. Third, the nearly indiscernible role of governments in ACT-A, raising key questions about political legitimacy and channels for public accountability. With global public health and billions in public funding at stake, short-term improvements to governance arrangements can and should now be made. Efforts to strengthen pandemic preparedness for the future require attention to ethical, legitimate arrangements for governance.
| S-EPMC8797025 | biostudies-literature
Project description:MotivationPublic archives contain thousands of trillions of bases of valuable sequencing data. More than 40% of the Sequence Read Archive is human data protected by provisions such as dbGaP. To analyse dbGaP-protected data, researchers must typically work with IT administrators and signing officials to ensure all levels of security are implemented at their institution. This is a major obstacle, impeding reproducibility and reducing the utility of archived data.ResultsWe present a protocol and software tool for analyzing protected data in a commercial cloud. The protocol, Rail-dbGaP, is applicable to any tool running on Amazon Web Services Elastic MapReduce. The tool, Rail-RNA v0.2, is a spliced aligner for RNA-seq data, which we demonstrate by running on 9662 samples from the dbGaP-protected GTEx consortium dataset. The Rail-dbGaP protocol makes explicit for the first time the steps an investigator must take to develop Elastic MapReduce pipelines that analyse dbGaP-protected data in a manner compliant with NIH guidelines. Rail-RNA automates implementation of the protocol, making it easy for typical biomedical investigators to study protected RNA-seq data, regardless of their local IT resources or expertise.Availability and implementationRail-RNA is available from http://rail.bio Technical details on the Rail-dbGaP protocol as well as an implementation walkthrough are available at https://github.com/nellore/rail-dbgap Detailed instructions on running Rail-RNA on dbGaP-protected data using Amazon Web Services are available at http://docs.rail.bio/dbgap/Contacts: anellore@gmail.com or langmea@cs.jhu.eduSupplementary informationSupplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
| S-EPMC4978928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical trials generally each collect their own data despite routinely collected health data (RCHD) increasing in quality and breadth. Our aim is to quantify UK-based randomised controlled trials (RCTs) accessing RCHD for participant data, characterise how these data are used and thereby recommend how more trials could use RCHD. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review of RCTs accessing RCHD from at least one registry in the UK between 2013 and 2018 for the purposes of informing or supplementing participant data. A list of all registries holding RCHD in the UK was compiled. In cases where registries published release registers, these were searched for RCTs accessing RCHD. Where no release register was available, registries were contacted to request a list of RCTs. For each identified RCT, information was collected from all publicly available sources (release registers, websites, protocol etc.). The search and data extraction were undertaken between January and May 2019. RESULTS:We identified 160 RCTs accessing RCHD between 2013 and 2018 from a total of 22 registries; this corresponds to only a very small proportion of all UK RCTs (about 3%). RCTs accessing RCHD were generally large (median sample size 1590), commonly evaluating treatments for cancer or cardiovascular disease. Most of the included RCTs accessed RCHD from NHS Digital (68%), and the most frequently accessed datasets were mortality (76%) and hospital visits (55%). RCHD was used to inform the primary trial (82%) and long-term follow-up (57%). There was substantial variation in how RCTs used RCHD to inform participant outcome measures. A limitation was the lack of information and transparency from registries and RCTs with respect to which datasets have been accessed and for what purposes. CONCLUSIONS:In the last five years, only a small minority of UK-based RCTs have accessed RCHD to inform participant data. We ask for improved accessibility, confirmed data quality and joined-up thinking between the registries and the regulatory authorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019123088.
| S-EPMC7218527 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Currently, there is a growing interest in ensuring the transparency and reproducibility of the published scientific literature. According to a previous evaluation of 441 biomedical journals articles published in 2000-2014, the biomedical literature largely lacked transparency in important dimensions. Here, we surveyed a random sample of 149 biomedical articles published between 2015 and 2017 and determined the proportion reporting sources of public and/or private funding and conflicts of interests, sharing protocols and raw data, and undergoing rigorous independent replication and reproducibility checks. We also investigated what can be learned about reproducibility and transparency indicators from open access data provided on PubMed. The majority of the 149 studies disclosed some information regarding funding (103, 69.1% [95% confidence interval, 61.0% to 76.3%]) or conflicts of interest (97, 65.1% [56.8% to 72.6%]). Among the 104 articles with empirical data in which protocols or data sharing would be pertinent, 19 (18.3% [11.6% to 27.3%]) discussed publicly available data; only one (1.0% [0.1% to 6.0%]) included a link to a full study protocol. Among the 97 articles in which replication in studies with different data would be pertinent, there were five replication efforts (5.2% [1.9% to 12.2%]). Although clinical trial identification numbers and funding details were often provided on PubMed, only two of the articles without a full text article in PubMed Central that discussed publicly available data at the full text level also contained information related to data sharing on PubMed; none had a conflicts of interest statement on PubMed. Our evaluation suggests that although there have been improvements over the last few years in certain key indicators of reproducibility and transparency, opportunities exist to improve reproducible research practices across the biomedical literature and to make features related to reproducibility more readily visible in PubMed.
| S-EPMC6245499 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In response to the pressing need for more efficacious and safer therapeutics for endometriosis, there have been numerous reports in the last decade of positive results from animal and in vitro studies of various compounds as potential therapeutics for endometriosis. A handful of these have undergone phase II/III clinical trials. Since the announcement of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors that mandated registration as a prerequisite for publication, 57 endometriosis-related clinical trials have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, an Internet-based public depository for information on drug studies. Among them, 25 are listed as completed, and 2 as suspended. There are 15 completed phase II/III trials, which evaluated the efficacy of various promising compounds. Yet only three of the 15 trials (20%) have published their results. The remaining 12 (80%) studies so far have not published their findings. We argue that this apparent lack of transparency will actually not benefit the trial sponsors or the public, and will ultimately prove detrimental to research efforts attempting to develop more efficacious and safer therapeutics for endometriosis. Thus we call for more transparency of clinical trials on endometriosis.
| S-EPMC4102915 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is a common misconception that the United States is suffering from a "STEM shortage," a dearth of graduates with scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical backgrounds. In biomedical science, however, we are likely suffering from the opposite problem and could certainly better tailor training to actual career outcomes. At the Future of Research Symposium, various workshops identified this as a key issue in a pipeline traditionally geared toward academia. Proposals for reform all ultimately come up against the same problem: there is a shocking lack of data at institutional and national levels on the size, shape, and successful careers of participants in the research workforce. In this paper, we call for improved institutional reporting of the number of graduate students and postdocs and their training and career outcomes.
| S-EPMC4395122 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The challenge of decoding information about complex diseases hidden in huge number of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotypes is undertaken based on five dbGaP studies. Current genome-wide association studies have successfully identified many high-risk SNPs associated with diseases, but precise diagnostic models for complex diseases by these or more other SNP genotypes are still unavailable in the literature. We report that lung cancer, breast cancer and prostate cancer as the first three top cancers worldwide can be predicted precisely via 240-370 SNPs with accuracy up to 99% according to leave-one-out and 10-fold cross-validation. Our findings (1) confirm an early guess of Dr. Mitchell H. Gail that about 300 SNPs are needed to improve risk forecasts for breast cancer, (2) reveal an incredible fact that SNP genotypes may contain almost all information that one wants to know, and (3) show a hopeful possibility that complex diseases can be precisely diagnosed by means of SNP genotypes without using phenotypical features. In short words, information hidden in SNP genotypes can be extracted in efficient ways to make precise diagnoses for complex diseases.
| S-EPMC7804208 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReproducibility is the hallmark of good science. Maintaining a high degree of transparency in scientific reporting is essential not just for gaining trust and credibility within the scientific community but also for facilitating the development of new ideas. Sharing data and computer code associated with publications is becoming increasingly common, motivated partly in response to data deposition requirements from journals and mandates from funders. Despite this increase in transparency, it is still difficult to reproduce or build upon the findings of most scientific publications without access to a more complete workflow.FindingsVersion control systems (VCS), which have long been used to maintain code repositories in the software industry, are now finding new applications in science. One such open source VCS, Git, provides a lightweight yet robust framework that is ideal for managing the full suite of research outputs such as datasets, statistical code, figures, lab notes, and manuscripts. For individual researchers, Git provides a powerful way to track and compare versions, retrace errors, explore new approaches in a structured manner, while maintaining a full audit trail. For larger collaborative efforts, Git and Git hosting services make it possible for everyone to work asynchronously and merge their contributions at any time, all the while maintaining a complete authorship trail. In this paper I provide an overview of Git along with use-cases that highlight how this tool can be leveraged to make science more reproducible and transparent, foster new collaborations, and support novel uses.
| S-EPMC3639880 | biostudies-literature
