ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2025
Making human derived data FAIR: feedback from NCI office of data sharing workshop.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 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.
- Multi-omics Mendelian randomization and experimental validation identify PRKAB1 as a regulator of phosphatidylcholine metabolism in IBD.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The US federal government is committed to maximizing its return on biomedical research investment. This tenet is exemplified by policies that promote broad, responsible sharing of research products generated with public funds, including the recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) Final Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Policy and the NIH Updated Public Access Policy. Scientific data management and sharing must occur in a FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) manner for it to be broadly usable and thereby most impactful [1,2]. The NCI Office of Data Sharing (ODS) conducted a series of workshops to identify clinical features and profiles derived from patients and study participants that inform these respective basic, translational, clinical, and populational science research analyses. The workshop outputs lay the groundwork for developing best practice recommendations on high-value, impactful clinical data features to collect and share with the wider research community. The workshop also highlighted additional data types and methodologies represented across the NCI-funded research portfolio that need structured outputs to be better defined to similarly allow broad sharing in a FAIR manner. In this article we summarize the workshop discussions on data use challenges, present potential solutions, and outline attendee consensus on the minimum patient-derived clinical information needed to complete a wide spectrum of cancer research. We further propose preliminary guidance for policymakers and researchers to implement regarding collection and management of human derived clinical data in consistent and impactful ways that can improve the sharing process and outcomes for data end users.
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.