DOCSLIB.ORG

Status, Use and Impact of Sharing Individual Participant Data from Clinical Trials: a Scoping Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Status, Use and Impact of Sharing Individual Participant Data from Clinical Trials: a Scoping Review Open access Original research BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049228 on 18 August 2021. Downloaded from Status, use and impact of sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: a scoping review Christian Ohmann ,1 David Moher ,2 Maximilian Siebert ,3 Edith Motschall ,4 Florian Naudet 5 To cite: Ohmann C, Moher D, ABSTRACT Strengths and limitations of this study Siebert M, et al. Status, Objectives To explore the impact of data- sharing use and impact of sharing initiatives on the intent to share data, on actual data ► Exhaustive review of both the literature and the main individual participant sharing, on the use of shared data and on research output data from clinical trials: a initiatives in data sharing. and impact of shared data. scoping review. BMJ Open ► Analysis of the full data- sharing process covering in- Eligibility criteria All studies investigating data- sharing 2021;11:e049228. doi:10.1136/ tention to share, actual sharing, use of shared data, practices for individual participant data (IPD) from clinical bmjopen-2021-049228 research output and impact. trials. ► Retrieval and synthesis of information proved to be ► Prepublication history and Sources of evidence We searched the Medline database, difficult because of a very siloed landscape where additional supplemental material the Cochrane Library, the Science Citation Index Expanded for this paper are available each initiative/platform operates with its own and the Social Sciences Citation Index via Web of Science, online. To view these files, metrics. and preprints and proceedings of the International please visit the journal online. ► Data sharing is a moving target in a rapidly changing Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication. In (http:// dx. doi. org/ 10. 1136/ environment with more and more new initiatives. bmjopen- 2021- 049228). addition, we inspected major clinical trial data- sharing ► Only a limited research output from data sharing is platforms, contacted major journals/publishers, editorial available so far. Received 20 January 2021 groups and some funders. ► The time from submitting a data- sharing request to Accepted 20 July 2021 Charting methods Two reviewers independently receiving the requested data was not systematically extracted information on methods and results from investigated in the review. resources identified using a standardised questionnaire. A map of the extracted data was constructed and accompanied by a narrative summary for each outcome discussion about clinical trial data sharing, http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ domain. the emphasis is naturally on the data sets Results 93 studies identified in the literature search © Author(s) (or their themselves, but data sharing is much broader. employer(s)) 2021. Re- use (published between 2001 and 2020, median: 2018) and 5 permitted under CC BY- NC. No from additional information sources were included in the Besides the individual participant data (IPD) commercial re- use. See rights scoping review. Most studies were descriptive and focused sets, other clinical trial data sources should and permissions. Published by on early phases of the data- sharing process. While the be made available for sharing (eg, proto- BMJ. willingness to share IPD from clinical trials is extremely cols, clinical study reports, statistical analysis 1 European Clinical Research high, actual data- sharing rates are suboptimal. A survey plans, blank consent forms) to enable a full Infrastructure Network, Paris, on September 27, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. of journal data suggests poor to moderate enforcement of understanding of any data set. In this scoping France the policies by publishers. Metrics provided by platforms 2Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa review, there is a focus on the sharing of IPD suggest that a large majority of data remains unrequested. Hospital Research Institute, from clinical trials. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada When requested, the purpose of the reuse is more often Within clinical research, data sharing can 3 secondary analyses and meta-analyses, rarely re-analyses. CHU Rennes, CIC 1414 (Centre enhance reproducibility and the generation d'Investigation Clinique de Finally, studies focused on the real impact of data- sharing of new knowledge, but it also has an ethical Rennes), University Rennes, were rare and used surrogates such as citation metrics. 2 Rennes, France Conclusions There is currently a gap in the evidence and economic dimension. Scientifically, 4Institute of Medical Biometry base for the impact of IPD sharing, which entails sharing makes it possible to compare or and Statistics, Faculty of uncertainties in the implementation of current data- combine the data from different studies, and Medicine and Medical Center – sharing policies. High level evidence is needed to assess to more easily aggregate it for meta- analysis. University of Freiburg, Freiburg, whether the value of medical research increases with Baden- Württemberg, Germany It enables conclusions to be re- examined data- sharing practices. 5CHU Rennes, INSERM CIC 1414 and verified or, occasionally, corrected, and (Centre d'Investigation Clinique it can enable new hypotheses to be tested. de Rennes), University Rennes, Sharing can, therefore, increase data validity, Rennes, Bretagne, France INTRODUCTION but it also draws more value from the orig- Correspondence to Rationale inal research investment, as well as helping Professor Christian Ohmann; Data sharing is increasingly recognised as a to avoid unnecessary repetition of studies. christianohmann@ outlook. de key requirement in clinical research.1 In any Agencies and funders are referring more and Ohmann C, et al. BMJ Open 2021;11:e049228. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049228 1 Open access BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049228 on 18 August 2021. Downloaded from more to the economic advantages of data reuse. Ethically, Data Access (YODA) (launched in 2011), Clin ical Stud data sharing provides a better way to honour the gener- yDat aRequest. com (CSDR) (launched in 2013), Vivli osity of clinical trial participants, because it increases the (launched in 2018). A considerable number of individual utility of the data they provide. Despite the high potential studies have been performed to access and explore the for sharing clinical trial data, the launch and implemen- sharing of data from clinical trials under different circum- tation of several data- sharing initiatives and platforms, stances and within different frameworks. What is strongly and outstanding examples related to the value of data needed is a scoping review providing an overview of the sharing,3 to date data sharing is not the norm in clinical status of implementation of data sharing as a whole and research, unlike many other scientific disciplines.4 One the implications originating from the available evidence. major hurdle is that clinical trial data concerns individ- uals and their health status, and as such requires specific Objectives measures to protect privacy. In this scoping review, we explored the impact of data- To support sharing of IPD in clinical trials, several sharing initiatives on the willingness to share data, the organisations have developed generic principles, guid- status of data sharing, the use of shared data and the ance and practical recommendations for implementa- impact of research outputs from shared data. tion. In 2016, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), a small group of medical journal editors, published an editorial stating that ‘it is METHODS an ethical obligation to responsibly share data gener- Protocol and registration ated by interventional clinical trials because participants The study protocol was registered on the Open Science have put themselves at risk’.5 The ICMJE considers that Framework on 12 September 2018 (registration number: there is an implicit social contract imposing an ethical osf.io/ pb8cj). The protocol followed the methodology obligation for the results to lead to the greatest possible manual published by the Joanna Briggs Institute for benefit to society. The ICMJE proposed to require that scoping reviews.12 Methods and results are reported using deidentified IPD is made publicly available no later than the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and 6 months after publication of the main trial results. This Meta Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.13 time lapse would be useless for public health emergencies like COVID-19. However, the ICMJE proposal triggered Eligibility criteria debate, and a large number of trialists were reluctant to The following eligibility criteria for studies were used: adopt this new norm6 on account of the feasibility of the All study designs were eligible, including case studies, proposed requirements, the resources required, the real surveys, metrics and experimental studies, using qualita- or perceived risks to trial participants, and the need to tive or quantitative methods. Only published or unpub- protect the interests of patients and researchers.7 lished reports (eg, preprints, congress presentations, http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ Despite the cultural shift towards sharing clinical trial non- indexed information such as websites) in English, data and the major commitment of scientific organisa- German, French or Spanish were considered. tions, funders and initiatives, overall there is still a lack We included all studies and reports 1/providing infor- of effective policies in the biomedical literature to ensure mation on current IPD
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Factors Influencing Clinical Trial Site Selection in Europe
    BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002957 on 15 November 2013. Downloaded from Open Access Research Factors influencing clinical trial site selection in Europe: the Survey of Attitudes towards Trial sites in Europe (the SAT-EU Study) Marta Gehring,1 Rod S Taylor,2 Marie Mellody,3 Brigitte Casteels,4 Angela Piazzi,3 Gianfranco Gensini,5 Giuseppe Ambrosio6 To cite: Gehring M, ABSTRACT et al Strengths and limitations of this study Taylor RS, Mellody M, . Objectives: Applications to run clinical trials in Factors influencing clinical Europe fell 25% between 2007 and 2011. Costs, speed ▪ trial site selection in Europe: We provide systematic evidence across a large of approvals and shortcomings of European Clinical the Survey of Attitudes sample of expert professionals indicating that towards Trial sites in Europe Trial Directive are commonly invoked to explain this fostering competitiveness of European clinical (the SAT-EU Study). BMJ unsatisfactory performance. However, no hard evidence research may not require additional government Open 2013;3:e002957. is available on the actual weight of these factors or has spending/incentives. Carefully crafted harmonisa- doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013- it been previously investigated whether other criteria tion of approvals, greater visibility of centres of 002957 may also impact clinical trial site selection. excellence via disease networks/the web, and Design: The Survey of Attitudes towards Trial sites in reduction of ‘hidden’ costs are more likely to ▸ Prepublication history for Europe (SAT-EU Study) was an anonymous, cross- boost competitiveness of European clinical this paper is available online. sectional web-based survey that systematically research.
    [Show full text]
  • Insights from the Web Usage Statistics in Plos Article-Level Metrics
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by PubMed Central The Spread of Scientific Information: Insights from the Web Usage Statistics in PLoS Article-Level Metrics Koon-Kiu Yan1,2, Mark Gerstein1,2,3* 1 Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, 2 Program in Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, 3 Department of Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America Abstract The presence of web-based communities is a distinctive signature of Web 2.0. The web-based feature means that information propagation within each community is highly facilitated, promoting complex collective dynamics in view of information exchange. In this work, we focus on a community of scientists and study, in particular, how the awareness of a scientific paper is spread. Our work is based on the web usage statistics obtained from the PLoS Article Level Metrics dataset compiled by PLoS. The cumulative number of HTML views was found to follow a long tail distribution which is reasonably well-fitted by a lognormal one. We modeled the diffusion of information by a random multiplicative process, and thus extracted the rates of information spread at different stages after the publication of a paper. We found that the spread of information displays two distinct decay regimes: a rapid downfall in the first month after publication, and a gradual power law decay afterwards. We identified these two regimes with two distinct driving processes: a short-term behavior driven by the fame of a paper, and a long-term behavior consistent with citation statistics.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Kit 2006-2007 Plos Biology
    PLoS Biology our flagship title * 2.4 million pages fully downloaded per year * 1.5 million visits per year * 100,000 unique visitors per month Media Kit 2006-2007 www.PLoS.org table OF CONTENTS 1 LETTER FROM THE PUBLISHER 2 A LITTLE HISTORY 3 EXPANDED ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES 4 HEADLINE FACTS AND FIGURES 5 COOL ACCOLADES 6 RATES & SPONSORSHIP PACKAGES 7 PREMIUM AD TYPES 8 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 9 CLOSING DATES 10 GENERAL INFORMATION PLoS Media Kit 2006-2007 i [email protected] (415) 568 3446 1a 1b 1c letter from the publisher redesigned web sites give advertisers more choice and impact Dear PLoS Advertiser, Welcome to PLoS. As a premier open access publisher, our journals have rapidly become “must reads” for the world’s most innovative minds. Infl uential researchers throughout the world choose PLoS because they know that scientifi c progress occurs faster when results are freely accessible to all. This is what makes them ardent fans of open access and compels them to publish their work in PLoS journals. The PLoS fl agship journals, PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine, are already established as top-tier publications with impact factors of 14.7 and 8.4, respectively. All our newer titles have also quickly gained prominence amongst the leaders in their fi elds. Later in 2006, we will launching PLoS ONE, another groundbreaking publishing initiative. By advertising with PLoS, your products and services will reach well-connected and successful individuals with the purchasing power and authority to give your brand power. Plus, you will also be associating your name with a positive force for change and the most exciting projects in scientifi c and medical publishing.
    [Show full text]
  • Industry Roles and Responsibilities
    IBCs in a Changing Research Landscape: A Policy Conference Industry: Roles and Responsibilities Steven A. Kradjian Executive Director, Regulatory Affairs VICAL Incorporated Progress Over 480 gene transfer trials are recorded on the OBA protocol list 86% Phase I studies 13% (64) of these in phase 2 1% (3) of these trials in phase 3. What has changed in the research landscape? Human gene transfer studies moved beyond Phase 1 research to late stage development Phase 2, Phase 3. Better characterized product Industry sponsors ~2/3 of human gene transfer clinical trials. Industry is a major partner in realizing and delivering potential benefits of gene-based medicines. Human Gene Transfer Research: FDA findings of Good Clinical Practices During 2000, FDA inspections 70 clinical study sites Industry and Academic Sponsors GCP compliance acceptable GCP deviations not different from other bioresearch programs Random Sampling of Phase 1 and 2 INDs, FDA March 2000 24 IND Sponsors of 70 Clinical Investigators Human Gene Transfer Participating in these Research INDs Independent 70.8% (17/24) 27.1% (19/70) Government (DHHS) 4.1% (1/24) 7.1% (5/70) Industry 25% (6/24) 65.7% (46/70) Gene Transfer Clinical Investigator Inspections A Comparison FDA inspected 70 randomly selected clinical investigators for GCP compliance. NAI VAI OAI GT 38% 55.9% 5.0% 2000 total 30.9% 57.1% 11.9% 2000w/o GT 21.4% 60% 18.5% 1999 28.5% 54.2% 17.1% 1998 34.9% 53% 12% Random surveillance inspections of Phase 1 and 2 gene therapy clinical trials indicates the trials were being properly conducted with fewer deviations than found in Phase 3 studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews
    This PDF is available from The National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13059 Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews ISBN Jill Eden, Laura Levit, Alfred Berg, and Sally Morton, Editors; Committee 978-0-309-16425-2 on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research; Institute of Medicine 372 pages 6 x 9 PAPERBACK (2011) Visit the National Academies Press online and register for... Instant access to free PDF downloads of titles from the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 10% off print titles Custom notification of new releases in your field of interest Special offers and discounts Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Request reprint permission for this book Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research Board on Health Care Services Jill Eden, Laura Levit, Alfred Berg, and Sally Morton, Editors THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
    [Show full text]
  • UMC Utrecht Research Evaluation
    UMC Utrecht Research Evaluation 2013-2018 Table of contents UMC Utrecht research Self-evaluation report 3 Self-evaluation strategic research program Brain 33 Self-evaluation report strategic research program Cancer 82 Self-evaluation report strategic research program Child Health 150 Self-evaluation report strategic research program Circulatory Health 218 Self-evaluation report strategic research program Infection & Immunity 294 Self-evaluation report strategic research program Regenerative Medicine & Stem Cells 352 UMC Utrecht research Self-evaluation report (2013-2018) Foreword 5 1. Mission, strategy & general organisation 6 1.1 Mission 6 1.2 Strategy 2015-2020 ‘Connecting U’ 6 1.3 Executive Board 6 1.4 Supervisory Board 6 1.5 Organisation 7 1.6 Governance developments 7 1.7 Patient and public involvement 7 1.8 Educational Research 8 2. Research organisation & key figures 9 2.1 Strategic research programs 9 2.2 Management and responsibilities 10 2.3 Research FTE 11 2.4 Professorships 11 2.5 Diversity 11 2.6 Funding and earning capacity 12 2.7 Facilities 14 2.8 Partners and collaborations 14 3. Research policy & support 17 3.1 Research Office 17 3.2 Support for innovation and funding 17 3.3 Compliance and quality management of clinical research 18 3.4 Integrity 18 3.5 Data management 19 3.6 Open Science 19 3.7 Benchmark: Research evaluation practices at the UMC Utrecht 20 4. PhD programs: Graduate School of Life Sciences 22 4.1 Recruitment, selection & admission 22 4.2 PhD enrolment 22 4.3 PhD training 23 4.4 Supervision 24 4.5 Governance 24 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Source Biology: a Means to Address the Access & Research Gaps
    Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 23 | Issue 2 Article 2 2007 Open Source Biology: A Means to Address the Access & Research Gaps Katherine M. Nolan-Stevaux Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Katherine M. Nolan-Stevaux, Open Source Biology: A Means to Address the Access & Research Gaps, 23 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 271 (2006). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol23/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OPEN SOURCE BIOLOGY: A MEANS TO ADDRESS THE ACCESS & RESEARCH GAPS? Katherine M. Nolan-Stevauxt Abstract Although Americans enjoy access to a wide range of drugs to treat all types of diseases, ranging from life-threatening to life- sustaining, numerous serious illnesses exist for which either there are no drugs available or worse the drugs that do exist are not available in a particular marketplace, such as the developing world. This articlefocuses on how an open source licensing system premised on patent law can foster drug development to benefit the developing world. The first section discusses the access and research gaps and explains how patents, in part, contribute to these gaps. The second section briefly explains open source licensing practices in software before discussing why an open source approach attracts biomedical researchers and how it might differ from open source approaches in software.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules, 2018
    DRAFT NEW DRUGS AND CLINICAL TRIALS RULES, 2018 SUBMISSIONS TO THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE Dhvani Mehta Nivedita Saksena March, 2018 www.vidhilegalpolicy.in This Report is an independent, non-commissioned piece of academic work. The authors would like to thank Jitin Ahuja for his inputs. The Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy is an independent think-tank doing legal research and assisting government in making better laws. For more information, see www.vidhilegalpolicy.in About the Authors Dhvani Mehta is a Senior Resident Fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy working in the Vidhi Aid initiative. Nivedita Saksena is a Research Fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy working in the Vidhi Aid initiative. © Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In a notification dated February 1, 2018, the Central Government invited comments on the draft New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules, 2018 (“Rules”). These Rules regulate the conduct of clinical trials (including clinical trial related injury and compensation), bioavailability and bioequivalence studies, and the import and manufacture of new drugs. They also govern the functioning of several entities such as the Central Licensing Authority, Ethics Committees and Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Study Centres. These entities and processes are currently governed by scattered provisions contained in the current Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, several gazette notifications, circulars and office orders. These Rules are a welcome step, and will help to consolidate and streamline the provisions under these different instruments. They will also increase regulatory certainty. However, certain issues must be addressed before these Rules can be effectively implemented.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Final Report
    PROJECT FINAL REPORT Publishable Grant Agreement number: HEALTH-F1-2007-201002 Project acronym: ICREL Project title: IMPACT ON CLINICAL RESEARCH OF EUROPEAN LEGISLATION Funding Scheme: CSA COORDINATION AND SUPPORT ACTION – SA SUPPORTING ACTION Period covered: from 01 January 2008 to 31 December 2008 Project co-ordinator name, Title and Organisation: Dr. Ingrid Klingmann, Project Coordinator, EFGCP Tel: +32 2 784 36 93 Fax: +32 2 784 30 66 E-mail: [email protected] Project website address: www.efgp.be/ICREL 1 ICREL – FINAL REPORT PUBLISHABLE – FEBRUARY 2009 Impact on Clinical Research of European Legislation (ICREL) Final Report – First Version 09 February 2009 European Commission, Directorate Research Grant Agreement Number: HEALTH‐F1‐2007‐201002 Submitted by the European Forum for Good Clinical Practice (EFGCP) in collaboration with European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Ethics Committee, Medical University of Vienna Hospital Clinic I Provincial de Barcelona Contact: Dr. Ingrid Klingmann European Forum for Good Clinical Practice Rue de l’Industrie 4 1000 Brussels Belgium Tel: +32 2 732 87 83 E‐mail: [email protected] - 2 - Table of Contents The Consortium....................................................................................................................................7 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................8 Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Application of Incident Command Structure to Clinical Trial Management in the Academic Setting: Principles and Lessons Learned Penny S
    Virginia Commonwealth University VCU Scholars Compass Anesthesiology Publications Dept. of Anesthesiology 2017 Application of Incident Command Structure to clinical trial management in the academic setting: principles and lessons learned Penny S. Reynolds Virginia Commonwealth University, [email protected] Mary J. Michael Virginia Commonwealth University Bruce D. Spiess Virginia Commonwealth University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/anesth_pubs Part of the Anesthesiology Commons © The Author(s). 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The rC eative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Downloaded from http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/anesth_pubs/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Dept. of Anesthesiology at VCU Scholars Compass. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anesthesiology Publications by an authorized administrator of VCU Scholars Compass. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Reynolds et al. Trials (2017) 18:62 DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1755-9 METHODOLOGY Open Access Application of Incident Command Structure to clinical trial management in the academic setting: principles and lessons learned Penny S. Reynolds1,2*, Mary J. Michael1,2 and Bruce D. Spiess1,2 Abstract Background: Clinical trial success depends on appropriate management, but practical guidance to trial organisation and planning is lacking.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Work Plan 2020 Would Then Be Updated Accordingly
    Ref. Ares(2020)3206340 - 19/06/2020 In accordance with Article 16 of the Statutes of the IMI2 JU annexed to Council Regulation (EU) No 557/2014 of 6 May 2014 and with Article 33 of the Financial Rules of the IMI2 JU. The third amended Annual Work Plan will be made publicly available after its adoption by the Governing Board. Sole annex to the Decision of the Governing Board of the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking no. IMI2-GB-DEC-2020-20 adopted on 19.06.2020 Page 1 of 238 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5 2 Annual Work Plan Year 2020 ....................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Operations ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Objectives & indicators - risks & mitigations ....................................................................................... 6 2.2.2 Scientific priorities for 2020 ............................................................................................................... 14 A. Neurodegeneration and other neuroscience priorities .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Research Data Curation and Management Bibliography
    Research Data Curation and Management Bibliography Charles W. Bailey Jr. Research Data Curation and Management Bibliography Copyright © 2021 by Charles W. Bailey, Jr. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. Original cover image before modification by Liam Huang. That image is under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/). Digital Scholarship, Houston, TX. http://www.digital-scholarship.org/ The author makes no warranty of any kind, either express or implied, for information in the Research Data Curation and Management Bibliography, which is provided on an "as is" basis. The author does not assume and hereby disclaims any liability to any party for any loss or damage resulting from the use of information in the Research Data Curation and Management Bibliography. Cite as: Bailey, Charles W., Jr. Research Data Curation and Management Bibliography. Houston: Digital Scholarship, 2021. http://www.digital- scholarship.org/rdcmb/rdcmb.htm. Preface The Research Data Curation and Management Bibliography includes over 800 selected English-language articles and books that are useful in understanding the curation of digital research data in academic and other research institutions. The "digital curation" concept is still evolving. In "Digital Curation and Trusted Repositories: Steps toward Success," Christopher A. Lee and Helen R. Tibbo define digital curation as follows: Digital curation involves selection and appraisal by creators and archivists; evolving provision of intellectual access; redundant storage; data transformations; and, for some materials, a commitment to long-term preservation.
    [Show full text]