ArticleComputers in biology and medicine2024
Distributed management of patient data-sharing informed consents for clinical research.
Article in Computers in biology and medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Blockchain-Based Dynamic and Revocable Consent for Secondary Health Data Use: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Pooled it
- Dynamic Consent for Secondary Use of Health Data: Challenges and Opportunities Under European Law.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Review
- Article
- Distributed cross-learning for equitable federated models - privacy-preserving prediction on data from five California hospitals.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Distributed, immutable, and transparent biomedical limited data set request management on multi-capacity network.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe consent protocol is now a critical part in the overall orchestration of clinical research. We aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of an Ethereum-based informed consent system, which includes an immutable and automated channel of consent matching, to simultaneously assure patient privacy and increase the efficiency of researchers' data access.
methodWe simulated a multi-site scenario, each assigned 10000 consent records. A consent record contained one patient's data-sharing preference with regards to seven data categories. We developed a blockchain-based infrastructure with a smart contract to record consents on-chain, and to query consenting patients corresponding to specific criteria. We measured our system's recording efficiency against a baseline design and verified accuracy by testing an exhaustive list of possible queries.
resultsOur method achieved ∼3-4% lead with an average insertion speed of ∼2 s per record per node on either a 3-, 4- or 5-node network, and 100 % accuracy. It also outperformed other solutions in external validation. DISCUSSION: The speed we achieved is reasonable in a real-world system under the realistic assumption that patients may not change their minds too frequently, with the added benefit of immutability. Furthermore, the per-insertion time did improve slightly as the number of network nodes increased, attesting to the benefit of node parallelism as it suggests no attrition of insertion efficiency due to scale of nodes.
conclusionsOur work confirms the technical feasibility of a blockchain-based consent mechanism, assuring patients with an immutable audit trail, and providing researchers with an efficient way to reach their cohorts.
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.