14459 results for ""Pennsylvania+German"+ACS+study+'Socius'+open+access"

in 12.15 milliseconds.

• Genomic Data Access Committee for Early and Late Onset Colorectal Cancer Study

  This Data Access Committee (DAC) manages access to genomic data generated from the study "A Clinically and Genomically Annotated Early Onset Colorectal Cancer and Late Onset Colorectal Cancer." The study focuses on identifying the distinct genomic profiles of early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) compared to late-onset colorectal cancer (LOCRC) through whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of both tissue and blood samples. The DAC is responsible for reviewing and approving access requests from researchers who wish to utilize this data for non-commercial, academic purposes related to colorectal cancer research. The committee ensures that all data access is granted in compliance with ethical standards and that the data is used solely for the approved research objectives. Researchers requesting access to this data must provide a detailed research proposal, institutional review board (IRB) approval, and demonstrate relevant expertise in genomic research. All data will be stored in secure, encrypted environments, and any further sharing or use of the data requires additional DAC approval.

  Dac EGAC50000000359

• Single molecule molecular inversion probe capture developed using the CIViC database

  This study evaluated the use of the Clinical Interpretations of Variants in Cancer database (CIViC) to develop an Open-sourced CIViC Annotation Pipeline (OpenCAP). OpenCAP is a resource that allows users to develop a clinical capture panel that can be linked back to clinical summaries within the CIViC database. This method for capture panel development and variant annotation was tested using 27 cancer samples from 5 tumor subtypes with original exome or genome sequencing. Specifically, using OpenCAP, 111 variants were identified as relevant for the capture panel and 2,027 smMIPs were designed to target these variants. The smMIPs panel design was employed on all samples to validate the capture panel design. When compared to original sequencing, the CIViC smMIPs capture panel demonstrated a 95% sensitivity for variant detection (n = 61 variants). Additionally, the CIViC smMIPs capture panel identified 182 additional clinically relevant variants that had been missed on original sequencing.

  Study phs001890

• AmsterdamUMC Data Access Committee for the EPIC-CD study

  The current data access committee reviews and assesses data requests of researchers that seek to gain access to data acquired as part of the EPIC-CD project as performed at the AmsterdamUMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

  Dac EGAC50000000097

• FEGA and European GDI: working together to improve human health

  The Federated EGA is a global resource for discovery of and access to sensitive human omics and associated data consented for secondary use, through a network of human data repositories to accelerate biomedical research and improve human health. The Federated EGA network was launched in September 2022 with five inaugural nodes, and since 2023 seven operational nodes can share data across national borders in adherence to European and national laws. A few weeks after FEGA's official launch, in November 2022, the European Genomic Data Infrastructure (GDI) project was kicked-off . This European Commission co-funded project, coordinated by ELIXIR, is aimed to deliver federated, sustainable and secure data infrastructure to access genomic and related phenotypic and clinical data across Europe. This project supports the aim of the 1+MG initiative (25 EU countries, Norway and UK) to enable personalised medicine and health through a shared framework and infrastructure for securely accessing and integrating high quality genomic data and other health data across borders.1+MG will be an integral component of the European Health Data Space (EHDS) for secondary use (Healthdata@EU) as an authorised participant. How are Federated EGA and GDI similar? Given their shared visions, the Federated EGA and European GDI networks have a lot in common. To begin, they share the same overall goal of establishing networks of “nodes” that host sensitive human data within a jurisdiction and connecting these nodes in a global network to support data discovery and promote human genome data access for research and healthcare. FEGA and GDI are both initially focused on enabling access to human genomic data, while FEGA ambition is to expand the scope to clinical research data and other omics data in the future. FEGA and GDI are both built on open and interoperable software solutions, a subset of which are based on the LocalEGA components. FEGA and GDI implementation solutions are based on international community standards, for example those developed by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, which contributes to making them interoperable. Both FEGA and GDI allow for the nodes to make use of any solution that is fully compatible. As illustrated in Figure 1, a final key point is the significant overlap of institutions involved in envisioning and operating FEGA and GDI nodes, with the clear wish to keep them interoperable in the future. What distinguishes Federated EGA from GDI? Despite being largely similar, there are some differences between the FEGA and GDI networks, which we aim to clarify in this post. The first difference is the governance model that the nodes will operate to comply with national laws and GDPR. In the FEGA network, nodes have taken inspiration from the EGA data access model, where the infrastructure is a data processor of the hosted data and data controllership remains with the originating Data Access Committees (i.e. Data controllers) for each dataset. On the other hand, in the GDI network the controllership of datasets will be transferred to a 1+MG European Digital Infrastructure Consortium (EDIC) legal entity created by the Member States (MS), who will make data access decisions, with data holders having veto powers for their datasets. Importantly, FEGA nodes have the flexibility to choose another model to fit with their data protection framework, including becoming data controllers for their datasets. The second difference is the inclusion criteria for data. While FEGA nodes are designed to accept almost any type of omics data in need of control access (e.g. genomics, transcriptomics, genotyping, single cells sequencing, patient-tracked metagenomics), GDI nodes are initially, but not only, focused on accepting whole genome and exome sequencing data and affiliated data from sources such as (i) the Genome of Europe use case of the 1+MG initiative which specifically aims to fulfil the mission of building “a European network of national genomic reference cohorts of at least 500,000 citizens”) (ii) data collection of other types of genomic data identified by countries through the 1+MG dashboard and (iii) genomic data coming from data holders which would need to fulfil EHDS requirements. The third difference is the maturity of the software stacks. The FEGA network provides a set of software for data and metadata submission, storage, permissions management, and file distribution (the LocalEGA package). GDI is building a complete set of open source reference for the five functionalities covering the full data life cycle (a few more compared to the LocalEGA) including federated processing (analytics, AI/ML), which is still under active development. Notably, one of the GDI functionalities - storage and interfaces - can be satisfied by using the LocalEGA storage solution, highlighting the ability of FEGA and GDI to be interoperable. In both FEGA and GDI, nodes are allowed to use alternative solutions as long as they are fully interoperable with the networks. Figure 1 provides a simple overview of these described commonalities and differences. Figure1: schematic overview of the main commonalities and difference among a FEGA and a GDI node Can the same institute run a FEGA and a GDI node at the same time? The answer is Yes! We believe this is entirely possible and encouraged. As long as 1+MG requirements are continuously fulfilled in the implementation. The same trained personnel could operate the infrastructure and leverage the same national funding to run a FEGA and a GDI node. Several European nodes, especially GDI vanguard nodes like Norway, Sweden, Finland and Spain are following this model. The idea is that a lot of the work can be reused, given the overlapping scope and the interoperable technology. Thus, the hosted datasets can be discovered via the two catalogues, perhaps accessible under the same or different governance models. From a FEGA node perspective, the GDI datasets could simply be a subset of the datasets hosted in the FEGA node, which have their specific governance as any other. What's next? So, the amazing teams of people building the Federated EGA network and the European GDI network are working together to create infrastructures able to provide secure access to human genomic and associated data around Europe. Because we all know how much human genomics can improve healthcare and precision medicine. And we all want to collaborate to make it happen. This article has been reviewed collectively by members of the EGA and the GDI coordination team.

  Blog fega-and-gdi

• Single cell atlas of human glioma

  We profiled 87 primary-recurrentpatient-matched paired GBM specimens with single-nucleus RNA and bulk-DNA sequencing and single-cell open-chromatin and spatial transcriptomics/proteomics assays. We found that recurrent GBMs are characterized by a shift to a mesenchymal phenotype in response to therapy

  Dataset EGAD00001008811

• FRIGE IHG Data Access Committee reviews the aim and methodology of the proposed study for which access to anonymised data is requested.

  Dac EGAC00001003629

• AmsterdamUMC Data Access Committee for the MAPS study

  The current data access committee reviews and assesses data requests of researchers that seek to gain access to data acquired from the MAping the Peritoneal immune System (MAPS) project as performed at the AmsterdamUMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

  Dac EGAC50000000096

• The genetic structure of Norway

  The aim of the present study was to describe the genetic structure of the Norwegian population using genotypes from 6369 unrelated individuals with detailed information about places of residence. Using standard single marker- and haplotype-based approaches, we report evidence of two regions with distinctive patterns of genetic variation, one in the far northeast, and another in the south of Norway, as indicated by fixation indices, haplotype sharing, homozygosity and effective population size. We detect and quantify a component of Uralic Sami ancestry that is enriched in the North. On a finer scale, we find that rates of migration have been affected by topography like mountain ridges. In the broader Scandinavian context, we detect elevated relatedness between the mid- and northern border areas towards Sweden. The main finding of this study is that despite Norway’s long maritime history and as a former Danish territory, the region closest to mainland Europe in the south appears to have been the most isolated region in Norway, highlighting the open sea as a barrier to gene flow into Norway.

  Study EGAS00001004826

• Mechanisms_of_patient_response_to_Dabrafenib_in_Melanoma

  Samples will be from the BRF113683 (BREAK-3) study which is a Phase III Randomized, Open-label Study Comparing GSK2118436 to Dacarbazine (DTIC) in Previously Untreated Subjects With BRAF Mutation Positive Advanced (Stage III) or Metastatic (Stage IV) Melanoma (n=250 enrolled)•NGS [Agilent capture (Sanger V2 panel): 360 genes and 20 gene fusions; Illumina HiSEQ Sequencing]•CNV: [via NGS or Affy SNP 6.0 or Illumina Omni (TBD)]Bioinformatics: Analysis will be performed using core Sanger informatics pipelines similar to those previously described (Papaemmanuil E et al. (2013) Blood. 22:3616 -3627). Briefly, copy number analysis will be performed using the ASCAT algorithm, and base substitutions, small insertions and deletions using the CAVEMAN and Pindel algorithms, respectively. Statistical approaches including generalized linear models will be used to predict clinical variables such as maximum clinical response and duration of response using genetic data. Sanger and EBI to conduct analysis; Raw data and correlation with clinical endpoints to be analyzed by both EBI/Sanger and GSK (unique pipeline analyses to increase call confidence)

  Study EGAS00001000946

• Experimental PfSPZ Vaccine in Adults Without Malaria

  The study was performed to evaluate whole-blood transcriptomic profiles via RNA-seq before, during, and after immunization with the PfSPZ Vaccine in malaria-naïve, healthy adults enrolled in VRC 312 (NCT01441167). VRC 312 was the second study of the PfSPZ Vaccine and the first study to evaluate intravenous (IV) administration of this vaccine. The study was an open-label evaluation of the safety, tolerability, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy of the vaccine at successively higher administered by the IV route. The highest dosages were evaluated for protection against a malaria challenge after 4 to 6 vaccinations. The primary objectives of the study were related to the safety and tolerability of the vaccine at the 4 different dosage levels when administered IV; the secondary objectives were related to PfSPZ vaccine-mediated protection against Plasmodium falciparum (Pf) challenge at the 3 higher dosage levels, and the exploratory objectives were related to the immunogenicity of the PfSPZ Vaccine and defining an immune correlate of protection. To further determine potential molecular correlates of immunogenicity and/or protection, RNA-seq was performed on whole blood collected from subjects in all dose groups at time points before, during, and after immunization.

  Study phs002422