Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33784300›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2021

Orchestrating privacy-protected big data analyses of data from different resources with R and DataSHIELD.

Yannick Marcon, Tom Bishop, Demetris Avraam, Xavier Escriba-Montagut, Patricia Ryser-Welch, Stuart Wheater, Paul Burton, Juan R González

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Ten Topics to Get Started in Medical Informatics Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Yannick MarconEpigeny, St Ouen, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0138-2023
Tom BishopMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3407-2526
Demetris AvraamPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8908-2441
Xavier Escriba-MontagutBarcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, Spain.
Patricia Ryser-WelchPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
Stuart WheaterArjuna Technologies, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
Paul BurtonPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5799-9634
Juan R GonzálezBarcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3267-2146
Newcastle University · GBUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ESUniversitat Pompeu Fabra · ESUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council 108439/A/15/ZWellcome TrustWellcome Trust 108439/A/15/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Combined analysis of multiple, large datasets is a common objective in the health- and biosciences. Existing methods tend to require researchers to physically bring data together in one place or follow an analysis plan and share results. Developed over the last 10 years, the DataSHIELD platform is a collection of R packages that reduce the challenges of these methods. These include ethico-legal constraints which limit researchers' ability to physically bring data together and the analytical inflexibility associated with conventional approaches to sharing results. The key feature of DataSHIELD is that data from research studies stay on a server at each of the institutions that are responsible for the data. Each institution has control over who can access their data. The platform allows an analyst to pass commands to each server and the analyst receives results that do not disclose the individual-level data of any study participants. DataSHIELD uses Opal which is a data integration system used by epidemiological studies and developed by the OBiBa open source project in the domain of bioinformatics. However, until now the analysis of big data with DataSHIELD has been limited by the storage formats available in Opal and the analysis capabilities available in the DataSHIELD R packages. We present a new architecture ("resources") for DataSHIELD and Opal to allow large, complex datasets to be used at their original location, in their original format and with external computing facilities. We provide some real big data analysis examples in genomics and geospatial projects. For genomic data analyses, we also illustrate how to extend the resources concept to address specific big data infrastructures such as GA4GH or EGA, and make use of shell commands. Our new infrastructure will help researchers to perform data analyses in a privacy-protected way from existing data sharing initiatives or projects. To help researchers use this framework, we describe selected packages and present an online book (https://isglobal-brge.github.io/resource_bookdown).

Indexed as

Big DataComputer SecuritySoftwareDatabases, FactualGenomicsGeographic Information SystemsHumans

Identifiers

PMID33784300
PMCPMC8034722
OpenAlexW3151167016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.