ArticleNeurology2022
Survey of Investigators About Sharing Human Research Data in the Neurosciences.
Article in Neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pennsieve: A Collaborative Platform for Translational Neuroscience and Beyond.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Privacy in perspective: research participants' priorities and concerns related to sharing data generated in human neuroscience studies.Neuroethics · 2025Article
- Can I have your data? Recommendations and practical tips for sharing neuroimaging data upon a direct personal request.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Ethical implications of neurotechnology in industry-academia partnerships: Insights from patient and research participant interviews.PloS one · 2025Article
- The BRAIN Initiative data-sharing ecosystem: Characteristics, challenges, benefits, and opportunities.eLife · 2024Article
- Demystifying the likelihood of reidentification in neuroimaging data: A technical and regulatory analysis.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Benefits of sharing neurophysiology data from the BRAIN Initiative Research Opportunities in Humans Consortium.Neuron · 2023Article
- Article
- Perspectives on Data Sharing in Persons With Spinal Cord Injury.Neurotrauma reports · 2023Article
- Regulating neural data processing in the age of BCIs: Ethical concerns and legal approaches.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesIn the neurosciences, significant opportunities for sharing individual-level data are underexploited. Commentators suggest various barriers to data sharing, which may need to be addressed. Investigators' perspectives on the main barriers are unclear. Furthermore, bioethicists have raised concerns about the potential misuse of neuroscience data, although discussions are hampered by uncertainty about the potential risks. It is unclear how common sensitive data are obtained and whether investigators judge them as sensitive.
methodsAn online survey was disseminated among 1,190 principal investigators (PIs) of active National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Mental Health, or NIH Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies Initiative grants involving human subject research.
resultsA total of 397 investigators responded to the survey (response rate 33%). Most investigators (84%) support efforts to increase sharing of deidentified individual-level data. However, investigators perceive many barriers to data sharing. The largest barriers were costs and time; limited interpretation of the data without understanding the context of data collection; lack of incentives; limited standardization and norms for data acquisition, formatting, and description; and heterogeneity of data types. Several types of data described as sensitive in the literature are common among neuroscience studies, for example, neural correlates of behavior, emotions, or decision making (71%) and/or predictive data (54%). Although most investigators consider it unlikely or extremely unlikely for their research data to be misused to harm individual research participants (82%), the majority were at least slightly concerned about potential harm to individuals if their research data were misused (65%). Investigators with more easily reidentifiable data, data from vulnerable groups, and neural data were more concerned about the likelihood of misuse and/or magnitude of harm of misuse of their research data. DISCUSSION: We hope these data help prioritize the development of tools and strategies to overcome the main barriers to data sharing. Furthermore, these data provide input on what may be sensitive data for which additional safeguards should be considered.
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.