ArticleScientific data2024
Getting your DUCs in a row - standardising the representation of Digital Use Conditions.
Article in Scientific data, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- European Reference Networks - a flagship activity of the EU in the field of rare and complex diseases: from 2017 to 2025.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Review
- Towards FAIR and federated data ecosystems for interdisciplinary research.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- EUPID-configurable privacy-preserving record linkage in federated health data spaces.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Guidelines for managing and using the digital phenotypes of pluripotent stem cell lines.Stem cell reports · 2024Review
- DS-PACK: Tool assembly for the end-to-end support of controlled access human data sharing.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Common conditions of use elements. Atomic concepts for consistent and effective information governance.Scientific data · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Improving patient care and advancing scientific discovery requires responsible sharing of research data, healthcare records, biosamples, and biomedical resources that must also respect applicable use conditions. Defining a standard to structure and manage these use conditions is a complex and challenging task. This is exemplified by a near unlimited range of asset types, a high variability of applicable conditions, and differing applications at the individual or collective level. Furthermore, the specifics and granularity required are likely to vary depending on the ultimate contexts of use. All these factors confound alignment of institutional missions, funding objectives, regulatory and technical requirements to facilitate effective sharing. The presented work highlights the complexity and diversity of the problem, reviews the current state of the art, and emphasises the need for a flexible and adaptable approach. We propose Digital Use Conditions (DUC) as a framework that addresses these needs by leveraging existing standards, striking a balance between expressiveness versus ambiguity, and considering the breadth of applicable information with their context of use.
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.