MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007833428 · doi:10.1186/s11568-014-0003-1

Framework for responsible sharing of genomic and health-related data

2014· article· en· W2007833428 on OpenAlexafffund
Bartha Maria Knoppers

Bibliographic record

VenueThe HUGO Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Genomics
FundersUniversity of TasmaniaMcGill UniversityInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleUniversity of OxfordGenomic Health
KeywordsData sharingBig dataDeclarationPreambleData accessKnowledge managementBusinessPolitical scienceData scienceComputer scienceMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preamble The sharing of genomic and health-related data for biomedical research is of key importance in ensuring continued progress in our understanding of human health and wellbeing. The challenges raised by international, collaborative research require a principled but nevertheless practical Framework that brings together regulators, funders, patient groups, information technologists, industry, publishers, and research consortia to share principles about data exchange. Such a Framework will facilitate responsible research conduct. This Framework is developed under the auspices of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. Its mission is to accelerate progress in human health by helping to establish a common Framework of harmonized approaches to enable effective and responsible sharing of genomic and clinical data and to catalyze data sharing projects that drive and demonstrate the value of data sharing. This Framework provides guidance for the responsible sharing of human genomic and health-related data, including personal health data and other types of data that may have predictive power in relation to health. In particular, it highlights, and is guided by, Article 27 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 27 guarantees the rights of every individual in the world “to share in scientific advancement and its benefits” (including to freely engage in responsible scientific inquiry), and at the same time “to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific...production of which [a person] is the author”. (As set out in Appendix 1, many other international conventions and national laws, regulations, codes and policies also guide responsible data sharing behavior). This Framework is guided by the human rights of privacy, non-discrimination and procedural fairness. At the same time, it considers all human rights principles relevant, complementary and interrelated, founded as they are on respect for human dignity. Since science proceeds only

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.177
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1770.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0120.030
Scholarly communication0.0250.022
Open science0.0120.022
Research integrity0.0240.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.009

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.736
GPT teacher head0.625
Teacher spread0.111 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainReproducibility
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations338
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe HUGO JournalSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207