MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7018125854

Data sharing in multi-site, multi-country trials

2017· article· en· W7018125854 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData sharingData governanceInformation governanceResearch ethicsPoolingInformation privacyHealth careLegislationData Protection Act 1998
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Primary health care (PHC) researchers increasingly need to share their data. This requires adherence to privacy laws, approval by ethics committees and comprehensive data management plans. IMPACT is a 6-site Canadian-Australian collaborative research program designed to improve access to primary health care for vulnerable individuals. Each site used a common protocol to design and evaluate its own intervention, with the aim of pooling data across the sites. Ethics applications were submitted in each site. Sharing data across the sites proved a challenge. Objective: This paper describes the data-sharing issues managed by IMPACT. Design: Consultations were conducted with key informants and documents were reviewed to develop a data sharing plan. Key informants had expertise in data governance, IT and/or research ethics in medical research. Documents included universities policies and submissions to ethics committees. The authors reflected upon the process and identified lessons for PHC researchers. Setting: IMPACT study sites in 3 Australian jurisdictions (New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia) and 3 Canadian jurisdictions (Alberta, Quebec, Ontario). Results: Data sharing for a multi-site multi-country study was complex. Privacy legislation and university policies were protective of patient privacy, particularly in Australia. The site-specific ethics applications had not specified that the data was part of a larger study. Consequently, the other sites were deemed as external. Multiple consultations with ethics, IT, and data governance units were required to clarify the data classification (patient data is inherently sensitive), who needed access, and how access could be enabled. Bringing support units together assisted a common understanding – this had not been usual practice. Conclusions: Early consultations with university ethics and data governance units is recommended for planning data sharing – particularly for patient data and complex projects.

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)0.706
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.721
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7060.721
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0080.015
Scholarly communication0.0120.015
Open science0.0070.013
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.855
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.282 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia)Same topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207