Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39742903›Full record

ReviewAnnals of epidemiology2025

Considerations for Social Networks and Health Data Sharing: An Overview.

Dana K Pasquale, Tom Wolff, Gabriel Varela, Jimi Adams, Peter J Mucha, Brea L Perry, Thomas W Valente, James Moody

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Dana K PasqualeDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Duke Network Analysis Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: dana.pasquale@duke.edu.
Tom WolffDuke Network Analysis Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
Gabriel VarelaDuke Network Analysis Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Sociology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Jimi AdamsDepartment of Sociology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Peter J MuchaDepartment of Mathematics, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
Brea L PerryDepartment of Sociology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA; Irsay Institute for Sociomedical Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Thomas W ValenteDepartment of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
James MoodyDuke Network Analysis Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Sociology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

Science CoreP2CHD065563 · NICHD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Giovanna M Merli · 2015 to 2026
$5.7M
Leveraging Neuroimaging Biomarkers to Understand the Role of Social Networks in Alzheimer's DiseaseR01AG057739 · NIA · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI APOSTOLOVA, LIANA G, PERRY, BREA LOUISE · 2018 to 2022
$3.5M
Epigenetic mechanisms underlying the direct and moderating effects of social connectedness on complex diseases in agingR01AG076032 · NIA · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI Brea Louise Perry · 2022 to 2026
$2.9M
Focused Training in Social Networks and HealthR25HD079352 · NICHD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MOODY, JAMES · 2015 to 2024
$1.6M
Social Networks in Alzheimer Disease 2.0.R37AG057739 · NIA · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI PERRY, BREA LOUISE · 2024 to 2025
$1.5M
Building a Harmonized Village Network Data Resource for Realistic Disease Transmission ModelsR21AI185162 · NIAID · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MOODY, JAMES · 2024 to 2025
$437k
NIAID NIH HHS R21 AI185162NIA NIH HHS R01 AG057739NIA NIH HHS R01 AG076032NIA NIH HHS R37 AG057739NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD065563NICHD NIH HHS R25 HD079352
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of network analysis as a tool has increased exponentially as more clinical researchers see the benefits of network data for modeling of infectious disease transmission or translational activities in a variety of areas, including patient-caregiving teams, provider networks, patient-support networks, and adoption of health behaviors or treatments, to name a few. Yet, relational data such as network data carry a higher risk of deductive disclosure. Cases of reidentification have occurred and this is expected to become more common as computational ability increases. Recent data sharing policies aim to promote reproducibility, support replicability, and protect federal investment in the effort to collect these research data by making them available for secondary analyses. However, typical practices to protect individual-level clinical research data may not be sufficiently protective of participant privacy in the case of network data, nor in some cases do they permit secondary data analysis. When sharing data, researchers must balance security, accessibility, reproducibility, and adaptability (suitability for secondary analyses). Here, we provide background about applying network analysis to health and clinical research, describe the pros and cons of applying typical practices for sharing clinical data to network data, and provide recommendations for sharing network data.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchInformation DisseminationSocial NetworkingSocial SupportHumansReproducibility of ResultsData securityData sharingNetwork dataPrivacyReproducibility of ResultsSecondary Data Analysis

Identifiers

PMID39742903
PMCPMC12165321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.