ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2024
Landscape analysis of available European data sources amenable for machine learning and recommendations on usability for rare diseases screening.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quantifying hope: an EU perspective of rare disease therapeutic space and market dynamics.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in Neuromuscular Diseases: Opportunities for a Data-Scarce Field.Neurology and therapy · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-based tools for precision diagnosis and treatment of neurofibromatosis type 1 associated peripheral and central glial tumors.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Review
- Hereditary angioedema diagnosis: Reflecting on the past, envisioning the future.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient registries and databases are essential tools for advancing clinical research in the area of rare diseases, as well as for enhancing patient care and healthcare planning. The primary aim of this study is a landscape analysis of available European data sources amenable to machine learning (ML) and their usability for Rare Diseases screening, in terms of findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable(FAIR), legal, and business considerations. Second, recommendations will be proposed to provide a better understanding of the health data ecosystem.
methodsIn the period of March 2022 to December 2022, a cross-sectional study using a semi-structured questionnaire was conducted among potential respondents, identified as main contact person of a health-related databases. The design of the self-completed questionnaire survey instrument was based on information drawn from relevant scientific publications, quantitative and qualitative research, and scoping review on challenges in mapping European rare disease (RD) databases. To determine database characteristics associated with the adherence to the FAIR principles, legal and business aspects of database management Bayesian models were fitted.
resultsIn total, 330 unique replies were processed and analyzed, reflecting the same number of distinct databases (no duplicates included). In terms of geographical scope, we observed 24.2% (n = 80) national, 10.0% (n = 33) regional, 8.8% (n = 29) European, and 5.5% (n = 18) international registries coordinated in Europe. Over 80.0% (n = 269) of the databases were still active, with approximately 60.0% (n = 191) established after the year 2000 and 71.0% last collected new data in 2022. Regarding their geographical scope, European registries were associated with the highest overall FAIR adherence, while registries with regional and "other" geographical scope were ranked at the bottom of the list with the lowest proportion. Responders' willingness to share data as a contribution to the goals of the Screen4Care project was evaluated at the end of the survey. This question was completed by 108 respondents; however, only 18 of them (16.7%) expressed a direct willingness to contribute to the project by sharing their databases. Among them, an equal split between pro-bono and paid services was observed.
conclusionsThe most important results of our study demonstrate not enough sufficient FAIR principles adherence and low willingness of the EU health databases to share patient information, combined with some legislation incapacities, resulting in barriers to the secondary use of data.
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.