ReviewNature communications2024
Data sharing ethics toolkit: The Human Cell Atlas.
Review in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are different populations fairly represented in single-cell omic atlases?Cell genomics · 2026Review
- Are Different Populations Fairly Represented in Single-Cell Omic Atlases?bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Why Should a Genome Be Protected? Ethical, Legal, and Security Challenges in the Protection of Genomic Data.Biology · 2026Review
- Connecting biospecimens and data: a scoping review-informed conceptual framework for digital infrastructure in biobanking and genomic research in low- and middle-income countries.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- A comparative review of single-cell atlases: mapping cellular diversity across species and tissues.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2025Review
- Transforming microfluidics for single-cell analysis with robotics and artificial intelligence.Lab on a chip · 2025Review
- Single-Cell Multi-Omics in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Revealing Cellular Heterogeneity and Mechanistic Insights.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Multiscale brain modeling: bridging microscopic and macroscopic brain dynamics for clinical and technological applications.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Striving to build an exhaustive guidebook of the types and properties of human cells, the Human Cell Atlas' (HCA) success relies on the sampling of diverse populations, developmental stages, and tissue types. Its open science philosophy preconizes the rapid, seamless sharing of data - as openly as possible. In light of the scope and ambition of such an international initiative, the HCA Ethics Working Group (EWG) has been working to build a solid foundation to address the complexities of data collection and sharing as part of Atlas development. Indeed, a particular challenge of the HCA is the diversity of sampling scenarios (e.g., living participants, deceased donors, pediatric populations, culturally diverse backgrounds, tissues from various developmental stages, etc.), and associated ethical and legal norms, which vary across countries contributing to the effort. Hence, to the extent possible, the EWG set out to provide harmonised, international and interoperable policies and tools, to guide its research community. This paper provides a high-level overview of the types of challenges and approaches proposed by the EWG.
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.