Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39289472›Full record

ReviewScientific reports2024

Data access arrangements in genomic research consortia.

Dianne Nicol, Jane Nielsen, Madeleine Archer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
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

3 authors.

Dianne NicolCentre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia. Dianne.nicol@utas.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6553-2839
Jane NielsenCentre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Madeleine ArcherFaculty of Business and Law, Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

Australian Research Council DP180100269
6 · The paper itself

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

GenomicsInformation DisseminationAccess to InformationHumansAccess to genomic dataGenomic data sharingGenomic research consortia

Identifiers

PMID39289472
PMCPMC11408512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.