MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386795627 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.8345276

International Genomic Data Sharing by Health Technologies Industries: Points to Consider

2023· report· en· W4386795627 on OpenAlexaff
Bartha Maria Knoppers, Shane Chase, Yann Joly, Ma’n H. Zawati, Adrian Thorogood

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2023
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData sharingData scienceBusinessComputer scienceComputational biologyBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This document outlines Points to Consider (PtC) for the responsible sharing of human genomic and health data internationally by Health Technologies Industries (HTI). HTI can contribute unique resources, technologies, and expertise to translating genomic discoveries into improvements in human health. International data sharing can further accelerate research and innovation. It can strengthen statistical power and reproducibility, facilitate collaboration and creative re-use of real-world evidence, increase the representativeness of precision medicine databases, and power AI approaches (including machine learning, deep learning and predictive modeling) that support genomic interpretation and clinical decision-making. Yet, research, innovation, and data sharing to advance precision medicine also raise important ethical issues, which include risks to the welfare and privacy of sequenced individuals, their families, and communities. The legal and policy landscape relating to data sharing is rapidly evolving. Relevant norms apply in areas of data privacy and protection law; AI law, governance, and ethical principles; research ethics regulations; and data sharing policies. This PtC tailored for HTI builds on the GA4GH’s Framework for Responsible Sharing of Genomic and Health-related Data (2014, re-approved 2019) and subsequent policies. The Framework is founded on human rights, aiming in particular to activate the right of everyone to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. Relevant Core Elements include: Transparency; Accountability; Data Quality and Security; Privacy, Data Protection and Confidentiality; Risk-Benefit Analysis; and Recognition and Attribution. Implementation of this PtC requires careful attention to the particular context – including the relevant jurisdictions, applicable laws and policies, sectors, companies, data sharing activities, and types of health and genomic data. The PtC is accompanied by Explanatory Notes (Appendix A) and issue-driven Briefs (Appendix B) to set the international context.

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)0.175
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.256
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1750.256
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0140.028
Scholarly communication0.0480.040
Open science0.0070.036
Research integrity0.0370.032
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.007

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 head0.718
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicEthics in Clinical Research→French-language works237,207→