Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37007976›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in genetics2023

FAIR human neuroscientific data sharing to advance AI driven research and applications: Legal frameworks and missing metadata standards.

Aaron Reer, Andreas Wiebe, Xu Wang, Jochem W Rieger

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. From lab to life: challenges and perspectives of fNIRS for haemodynamic-based neurofeedback in real-world environments.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

4 authors.

Aaron ReerApplied Neurocognitive Psychology Lab, Institute for Medicine and Healthcare, Department of Psychology, Oldenburg University, Oldenburg, Germany.
Andreas WiebeChair for Intellectual Property and Information Law, Göttingen University, Göttingen, Germany.
Xu WangChair for Intellectual Property and Information Law, Göttingen University, Göttingen, Germany.
Jochem W RiegerApplied Neurocognitive Psychology Lab, Institute for Medicine and Healthcare, Department of Psychology, Oldenburg University, Oldenburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern AI supported research holds many promises for basic and applied science. However, the application of AI methods is often limited because most labs cannot, on their own, acquire large and diverse datasets, which are best for training these methods. Data sharing and open science initiatives promise some relief to the problem, but only if the data are provided in a usable way. The FAIR principles state very general requirements for useful data sharing: they should be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. This article will focus on two challenges to implement the FAIR framework for human neuroscience data. On the one hand, human data can fall under special legal protection. The legal frameworks regulating how and what data can be openly shared differ greatly across countries which can complicate data sharing or even discourage researchers from doing so. Moreover, openly accessible data require standardization of data and metadata organization and annotation in order to become interpretable and useful. This article briefly introduces open neuroscience initiatives that support the implementation of the FAIR principles. It then reviews legal frameworks, their consequences for accessibility of human neuroscientific data and some ethical implications. We hope this comparison of legal jurisdictions helps to elucidate that some alleged obstacles for data sharing only require an adaptation of procedures but help to protect the privacy of our most generous donors to research … our study participants. Finally, it elaborates on the problem of missing standards for metadata annotation and introduces initiatives that aim at developing tools to make neuroscientific data acquisition and analysis pipelines FAIR by design. While the paper focuses on making human neuroscience data useful for data-intensive AI the general considerations hold for other fields where large amounts of openly available human data would be helpful.

Indexed as

data protectiondata sharing and re-useFAIR (findable accessible interoperable and reusable) principlesmachine learningmetadata standardsneuroimagingopen scienceprivacy law

Identifiers

PMID37007976
PMCPMC10065194

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.