Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
Language
- English (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- FAIR data principles (2)
- PRISMA (2)
- data stewardship (2)
- health research (2)
- scoping review (2)
- - (1)
- COVID (1)
- DNA damage response (1)
- OMOP (1)
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyse (1)
Institute
Publisher
- JMIR Publications (3)
- Frontiers Media S.A. (1)
- MDPI (1)
Background: Retrospective research on real-world data provides the ability to gain evidence on specific topics especially when running across different sites in research networks. Those research networks have become increasingly relevant in recent years; not least due to the special situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. An important requirement for those networks is the data harmonization by ensuring the semantic interoperability. Aims: In this paper we demonstrate (1) how to facilitate digital infrastructures to run a retrospective study in a research network spread across university and non-university hospital sites; and (2) to answer a medical question on COVID-19 related change in diagnostic counts for diabetes-related eye diseases. Materials and methods: The study is retrospective and non-interventional and runs on medical case data documented in routine care at the participating sites. The technical infrastructure consists of the OMOP CDM and other OHDSI tools that is provided in a transferable format. An ETL process to transfer and harmonize the data to the OMOP CDM has been utilized. Cohort definitions for each year in observation have been created centrally and applied locally against medical case data of all participating sites and analyzed with descriptive statistics. Results: The analyses showed an expectable drop of the total number of diagnoses and the diagnoses for diabetes in general; whereas the number of diagnoses for diabetes-related eye diseases surprisingly decreased stronger compared to non-eye diseases. Differences in relative changes of diagnoses counts between sites show an urgent need to process multi-centric studies rather than single-site studies to reduce bias in the data. Conclusions: This study has demonstrated the ability to utilize an existing portable and standardized infrastructure and ETL process from a university hospital setting and transfer it to non-university sites. From a medical perspective further activity is needed to evaluate data quality of the utilized real-world data documented in routine care and to investigate its eligibility of this data for research.
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) and long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are involved in the modulation of the DNA-damage response (DDR) and upon exposure to ionizing radiation (IR), their expression fluctuates. In this study, we propose a workflow that enables the creation of regulatory networks by integrating transcriptomics data as well as regulatory data in order to better understand the interplay between genes, transcription factors (TFs), miRNAs, and lncRNAs in the cellular response to IR. We preprocessed and analyzed publicly available gene expression profiles and then applied our consensus and integration approach using open source data and tools. To exemplify the benefits of our proposed workflow, we identified a total of 32 differentially expressed transcripts corresponding to 20 unique differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and using these DEGs, we constructed a regulatory network consisting of 106 interactions and 100 nodes (11 DEGs, 78 miRNAs, 1 DEG acting as a TF, and 10 lncRNAs). Overrepresentation analyses (ORAs) furthermore linked our DEGs and miRNAs to annotations pertaining to the DDR and to IR. Our results show that MDM2 and E2F7 function as network hubs, and E2F7, miR-25-3p, let-7a-5p, and miR-497-5p are the four nodes with the highest betweenness centrality. In brief, our workflow, that is based on open source data and tools, and that generates a regulatory network, provides novel insights into the regulatory mechanisms involving miRNAs and lncRNAs in the cellular response to IR.
Data stewardship is an essential driver of research and clinical practice. Data collection, storage, access, sharing, and analytics are dependent on the proper and consistent use of data management principles among the investigators. Since 2016, the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) guiding principles for research data management have been resonating in scientific communities. Enabling data to be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable is currently believed to strengthen data sharing, reduce duplicated efforts, and move toward harmonization of data from heterogeneous unconnected data silos. FAIR initiatives and implementation trends are rising in different facets of scientific domains. It is important to understand the concepts and implementation practices of the FAIR data principles as applied to human health data by studying the flourishing initiatives and implementation lessons relevant to improved health research, particularly for data sharing during the coronavirus pandemic.
Background: Thorough data stewardship is a key enabler of comprehensive health research. Processes such as data collection, storage, access, sharing, and analytics require researchers to follow elaborate data management strategies properly and consistently. Studies have shown that findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) data leads to improved data sharing in different scientific domains.
Objective: This scoping review identifies and discusses concepts, approaches, implementation experiences, and lessons learned in FAIR initiatives in health research data.
Methods: The Arksey and O’Malley stage-based methodological framework for scoping reviews was applied. PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched to access relevant publications. Articles written in English, published between 2014 and 2020, and addressing FAIR concepts or practices in the health domain were included. The 3 data sources were deduplicated using a reference management software. In total, 2 independent authors reviewed the eligibility of each article based on defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A charting tool was used to extract information from the full-text papers. The results were reported using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines.
Results: A total of 2.18% (34/1561) of the screened articles were included in the final review. The authors reported FAIRification approaches, which include interpolation, inclusion of comprehensive data dictionaries, repository design, semantic interoperability, ontologies, data quality, linked data, and requirement gathering for FAIRification tools. Challenges and mitigation strategies associated with FAIRification, such as high setup costs, data politics, technical and administrative issues, privacy concerns, and difficulties encountered in sharing health data despite its sensitive nature were also reported. We found various workflows, tools, and infrastructures designed by different groups worldwide to facilitate the FAIRification of health research data. We also uncovered a wide range of problems and questions that researchers are trying to address by using the different workflows, tools, and infrastructures. Although the concept of FAIR data stewardship in the health research domain is relatively new, almost all continents have been reached by at least one network trying to achieve health data FAIRness. Documented outcomes of FAIRification efforts include peer-reviewed publications, improved data sharing, facilitated data reuse, return on investment, and new treatments. Successful FAIRification of data has informed the management and prognosis of various diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and neurological diseases. Efforts to FAIRify data on a wider variety of diseases have been ongoing since the COVID-19 pandemic.
Conclusions: This work summarises projects, tools, and workflows for the FAIRification of health research data. The comprehensive review shows that implementing the FAIR concept in health data stewardship carries the promise of improved research data management and transparency in the era of big data and open research publishing.
International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/22505
Guidelines and Standard Frameworks for AI in Medicine: Protocol for a Systematic Literature Review
(2023)
Background: Applications of artificial intelligence (AI) are pervasive in modern biomedical science. In fact, research results suggesting algorithms and AI models for different target diseases and conditions are continuously increasing. While this situation undoubtedly improves the outcome of AI models, health care providers are increasingly unsure which AI model to use due to multiple alternatives for a specific target and the “black box” nature of AI. Moreover, the fact that studies rarely use guidelines in developing and reporting AI models poses additional challenges in trusting and adapting models for practical implementation.
Objective: This review protocol describes the planned steps and methods for a review of the synthesized evidence regarding the quality of available guidelines and frameworks to facilitate AI applications in medicine.
Methods: We will commence a systematic literature search using medical subject headings terms for medicine, guidelines, and machine learning (ML). All available guidelines, standard frameworks, best practices, checklists, and recommendations will be included, irrespective of the study design. The search will be conducted on web-based repositories such as PubMed, Web of Science, and the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) network. After removing duplicate results, a preliminary scan for titles will be done by 2 reviewers. After the first scan, the reviewers will rescan the selected literature for abstract review, and any incongruities about whether to include the article for full-text review or not will be resolved by the third and fourth reviewer based on the predefined criteria. A Google Scholar (Google LLC) search will also be performed to identify gray literature. The quality of identified guidelines will be evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. A descriptive summary and narrative synthesis will be carried out, and the details of critical appraisal and subgroup synthesis findings will be presented.
Results: The results will be reported using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) reporting guidelines. Data analysis is currently underway, and we anticipate finalizing the review by November 2023.
Conclusions: Guidelines and recommended frameworks for developing, reporting, and implementing AI studies have been developed by different experts to facilitate the reliable assessment of validity and consistent interpretation of ML models for medical applications. We postulate that a guideline supports the assessment of an ML model only if the quality and reliability of the guideline are high. Assessing the quality and aspects of available guidelines, recommendations, checklists, and frameworks—as will be done in the proposed review—will provide comprehensive insights into current gaps and help to formulate future research directions.
International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/47105