ReviewScientific reports2024
Data access arrangements in genomic research consortia.
Review in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- FAIR by design (TRACE): A Trusted Research Access & Collaboration Environment.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Review
- Bridging global diversity gaps in Parkinson disease research.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2026Review
- Cancer genomics and bioinformatics in Latin American countries: applications, challenges, and perspectives.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Differences Between Government, Consortium, and Private Database Stewards Impacting the Genomic Data Market: A Survey of U.S. Academic Genetic Researchers.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
One of the most common terms that is used to describe entities responsible for sharing genomic data for research purposes is 'genomic research consortium'. However, there is a lack of clarity around the language used by consortia to describe their data sharing arrangements. Calls have been made for more uniform terminology. This article reports on a review of the genomic research consortium literature illustrating a wide diversity in the language that has been used over time to describe the access arrangements of these entities. The second component of this research involved an examination of publicly available information from a dataset of 98 consortia. This analysis further illustrates the wide diversity in the access arrangements adopted by genomic research consortia. A total of 12 different access arrangements were identified, including four simple forms (open, consortium, managed and registered access) and eight more complex tiered forms (for example, a combination of consortium, managed and open access). The majority of consortia utilised some form of tiered access, often following the policy requirements of funders like the US National Institutes of Health and the UK Wellcome Trust. It was not always easy to precisely identify the access arrangements of individual consortia. Greater consistency, clarity and transparency is likely to be of benefit to donors, depositors and accessors alike. More work needs to be done to achieve this end.
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.