ArticleArXiv2025
A decentralized future for the open-science databases.
Article in ArXiv, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The continuous and reliable open access to curated biological data repositories is indispensable for accelerating rigorous scientific inquiry and fostering reproducible research outcomes. However, the current paradigm, which relies heavily on centralized infrastructure for the storage and distribution of foundational biomedical datasets, inherently introduces significant vulnerabilities. This centralized model is susceptible to single points of failure, including cyberattacks, technical malfunctions, natural disasters, and even political or funding uncertainties. Such disruptions can lead to widespread data unavailability, data loss, integrity compromises, and substantial delays in critical research, ultimately impeding scientific progress. The downstream effect of such interruptions can be the widespread paralysis of diverse research activities, including computational, clinical, molecular, and climate studies. This scenario vividly illustrates the inherent dangers of consolidating essential scientific resources within a single geopolitical or institutional locus. As data generation is accelerating and the global landscape continues to fluctuate, the sustainability of centralized models must be critically re-evaluated. A shift toward federated and decentralized architectures may offer a robust and forward-looking approach to enhancing the resilience of scientific data infrastructures by reducing exposure to governance instability, infrastructural fragility, and funding volatility, while also promoting equity and global accessibility. Inspired by established models such as ELIXIR's federated infrastructure and the policy and funding frameworks developed by CODATA and the Global Biodata Coalition (GBC), emerging Decentralized Science (DeSci) initiatives can contribute to building more resilient, fair, and incentive-aligned data ecosystems. The future of open science depends on integrating these complementary approaches to establish a globally distributed, economically sustainable, and institutionally robust infrastructure that safeguards scientific data as a public good, further ensuring continued accessibility, interoperability, and preservation for generations to come. Here, we examine the structural limitations of centralized repositories, evaluate federated and decentralized models, and propose a hybrid framework for resilient, fair, and sustainable scientific data stewardship.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41040803PMC12486051What 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.