ArticleNeuroethics2025
Privacy in perspective: research participants' priorities and concerns related to sharing data generated in human neuroscience studies.
Article in Neuroethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Engaging patient communities in intracranial neuroscience research.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
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
Abstract
The societal benefits from sharing and reusing data collected in human neuroscience studies are widely appreciated. However, there are persistent barriers to data sharing as well as privacy concerns related to unauthorized access, misuse, and reidentification of deidentified data. Thus far, few studies have been conducted with neuroscience research participants to understand their data sharing priorities and concerns. We conducted a survey utilizing an experimental design with N=52 participants in neuroscience studies funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health representing diverse neurotechnologies and health conditions. Respondents prioritized sharing practices that maximize reuse of data to benefit patients and reduce the possibility of misuse of shared data. Most believed that both advancing research as quickly as possible and protecting their privacy are important. However, when forced to choose between these objectives, two-thirds of respondents believed that advancing research is most important. Reflecting on specific secondary use scenarios, the largest proportion of respondents were concerned about the possibility their shared brain data might be used to discriminate against them. On balance, respondents were less concerned about sharing their health information, including their brain imaging results, than sharing their online, spending, and location histories. The results affirm that data sharing with secondary researchers with the goal of helping patients by advancing research should remain a top priority and provide empirical support for legislation to prevent harms from misuse of sensitive personal data.
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.