ArticleGenome medicine2017
Creating a data resource: what will it take to build a medical information commons?
Article in Genome medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Responsible data sharing in international health research: a systematic review of principles and norms.BMC medical ethics · 2019Pooled it
- Addressing biomedical data challenges and opportunities to inform a large-scale data lifecycle for enhanced data sharing, interoperability, analysis, and collaboration across stakeholders.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Heuristics Identified in Health Data-Sharing Preferences of Patients With Cancer: Qualitative Focus Group Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Ethical and social reflections on the proposed European Health Data Space.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Who owns (or controls) health data?Scientific data · 2024Article
- Opportunities and challenges of 5G network technology toward precision medicine.Clinical and translational science · 2023Review
- What can data trusts for health research learn from participatory governance in biobanks?Journal of medical ethics · 2022Article
- Towards a Responsible Transition to Learning Healthcare Systems in Precision Medicine: Ethical Points to Consider.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Sharing biological data: why, when, and how.FEBS letters · 2021Article
- Dynamic Dossier in the Cloud: A Sociotechnical Architecture for a Real-Time and Metrics-Based Data Tracking System with Gene and Cell Therapies as a Case Study.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2021Article
- Where Does Open Science Lead Us During a Pandemic? A Public Good Argument to Prioritize Rights in the Open Commons.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2021Article
- Considerations for an integrated population health databank in Africa: lessons from global best practices.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- Essential requirements for establishing and operating data trusts: practical guidance co-developed by representatives from fifteen canadian organizations and initiatives.International journal of population data science · 2020Article
- Researcher Perspectives on Data Sharing in Deep Brain Stimulation.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Article
- Article
- What is a Medical Information Commons?The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2019Article
- The Role of Participants in a Medical Information Commons.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2019Article
- Who Owns the Data in a Medical Information Commons?The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2019Article
- Hopeful and Concerned: Public Input on Building a Trustworthy Medical Information Commons.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2019Article
- Characterizing the Biomedical Data-Sharing Landscape.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
Abstract
National and international public-private partnerships, consortia, and government initiatives are underway to collect and share genomic, personal, and healthcare data on a massive scale. Ideally, these efforts will contribute to the creation of a medical information commons (MIC), a comprehensive data resource that is widely available for both research and clinical uses. Stakeholder participation is essential in clarifying goals, deepening understanding of areas of complexity, and addressing long-standing policy concerns such as privacy and security and data ownership. This article describes eight core principles proposed by a diverse group of expert stakeholders to guide the formation of a successful, sustainable MIC. These principles promote formation of an ethically sound, inclusive, participant-centric MIC and provide a framework for advancing the policy response to data-sharing opportunities and challenges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.