MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412391450 · doi:10.1186/s40246-025-00784-z

Communicating clearly about data sharing in genomics

2025· review· en· W4412391450 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Genomics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsOntario GenomicsTerry Fox Research InstituteMcGill Genome Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman geneticsGenome BiologyGenomicsBiologyComputational biologyData sharingComputational genomicsGeneticsData scienceEvolutionary biologyComputer scienceGenomeMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the field of genomics, the secure and responsible sharing of data across institutions and borders is critical for advancing research and improving healthcare. However, challenges such as inconsistent terminology, data localization requirements, and cross-border data transfer regulations impede collaboration and innovation. To address these barriers, the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH), a global standards-setting organization in genomics, has developed a standardized lexicon of key terms for data sharing, including the nascent terms data visiting and federated data analysis. These definitions aim to improve communication within the genomics community by ensuring a consistent understanding of complex processes, addressing challenges like data localization and cross-border transfer. This article introduces these recently developed data sharing-related terms and considers their implications for data governance and global health research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesOpen science, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0070.012
Research integrity0.0010.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.846
GPT teacher head0.664
Teacher spread0.183 · 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