12504 results for ""non-traditional+communal+storytelling+approach"+novel+segment+noted+in+critical+commentary"

in 19.45 milliseconds.

• Nicola Valeri ICR

  WGS data from primary CRCs tissues in ctDNA positive patients

  Dac EGAC50000000395

• Genomic profiling of patient-derived xenografts and organoids in prostate cancer

  Study EGAS00001004673

• Transcriptomic profiling of patient-derived xenografts and organoids in prostate cancer

  Study EGAS00001004675

• AGECAN - Interespecies conservation of brain specific DNA methylation in aging and cancer

  Study EGAS00001004851

• Somatic mutations increase hepatic clonal fitness and regeneration in chronic liver disease

  Study EGAS00001003496

• Measuring minimal residual disease in acute myeloid leukemia with MASQ

  Study EGAS00001003732

• Association of DNA-methylation profiles with immune responses in breast cancer patients

  Study EGAS00001004211

• HDAC3 mediates the inflammatory response and LPS tolerance in human monocytes and macrophages

  Study EGAS00001004218

• The impact of urbanization and diet on innate immune responses in healthy Tanzanians

  Study EGAS00001004284

• Profiling Genome-Wide DNA Methylation Patterns in Human Aortic and Mitral Valves

  Study EGAS00001004559

• Selective Elimination of Immunosuppressive T cells in Patients with Multiple Myeloma

  Study EGAS00001004915

• Mutational consequences of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in humans

  Study EGAS00001004926

• Searching for genetic modulators of the phenotypic heterogeneity in Brugada Syndrome

  Study EGAS00001005848

• Validation study of genome-wide polygenic score for body mass index in South Asians

  Dac EGAC00001003593

• Genome-wide somatic variants in CRC (GRCh38)

  Study EGAS00001004710

• What is a DAC?

  What is a DAC? Given the complexity, scale, and diversity of global submitters and studies, the EGA operates a distributed data access model in which requests are made to the data controller, not to the EGA. The European Commission defines a data controller, in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as the person that determines the purposes for which and the means by which personal data is processed. A Data Access Committees, commonly referred to as DACs, comprise on or more individuals (or data controllers) that review data access requests and make decisions on who can access personally identifiable genetic, phenotypic, and clinical data deposited at the EGA. Therefore, the members of a DAC should be individuals who have the authority to approve data access requests. The animation describes how you can authorise access to your sensitive data with the help of Data Access Committee and Authorisation tool. Acknowledgement to CSC - IT Center for Finland, Elixir Finland, Elixir Europe. Frequently Asked Questions How can I create a Data Access Committee? How can I create a Data Access Committee? The members of a DAC can come from different areas of expertise, such as data management, data analysis, information technology, legal and compliance, subject matter experts, privacy and security, and representatives from the organisations or individuals that provide data to the DAC. The specific members of a DAC can vary depending on the needs of the organisation and the type of data being managed. The EGA strongly suggests checking with your organisation to align with its regulations How should a DAC be named? The chosen name must be informative to the applicant.  For example, internal identifiers, such as grant numbers, should not be used. Individual PI names should also not be used. DAC's are often named after the organisation or department of the data source.  Browse the full list of DAC names currently in the EGA. How can I become an EGA DAC contact? To register a DAC at the EGA you must create first as an EGA user. Once your EGA user has been approved by the Helpdesk team, you will be able to log in to the DAC Portal. How can I register a DAC? To register a DAC, follow the DAC Portal instructions.  You will be required to provide a DAC name, name of the individual(s) that make up your DAC and contact details for your DAC including your Institutional email(s). Wherever possible, the DAC should make sure that all points of contact are readily available and able to answer any initial data requests/queries in < 2 weeks.  Once your DAC is registered, you will have to wait upon the validation from our Helpdesk team. As soon as all the validations have been completed, your DAC will be activated. Alternatively, you can also establish a DAC at the EGA during a programmatic submission through Webin API. Which are the possible roles of a DAC contact? There are two possible roles for DAC contacts: member and admin. An admin has additional privileges compared to a member: An “admin” can manage data requests, create and edit policies, edit the content of the DAC, add or remove contacts, and decide the role of each contact. A “member” can manage data requests and create policies. However, a member does not have permission to modify DAC details, edit information from policies where they are not admins, or add/remove contacts. There is no limit to the number of admins in a DAC, and each admin is responsible for deciding who should have editing privileges. This allows for a more decentralised and democratic approach to managing the DAC. How can I modify the information of a DAC? To modify a DAC, follow the instructions here. Keep in mind that only DAC contact with an admin role can modify the information of a DAC. If your DAC was registered before the lauch of the DAC Portal, and its ID is EGAC0 (not EGAC5), you must use the programmatic submission to modify it. Please, do not hesitate to contact our Helpdesk team if you need help with this! To prevent potential data breaches and ensure adherence to GDPR regulations, it is essential that the European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is informed via the Helpdesk team of any changes to the Data Access Committee (DAC). This should be done in addition to any changes being made on the DAC portal. Data Controllers (as per the definition in the DPA) are also responsible for notifying the previous DAC of any modifications. Without proper notification, changes might not be automatically updated in our system, leading to the risk of incorrect permissions being applied and potential data access issues. Therefore, it is imperative that all Data Controllers follow this protocol to maintain data integrity and security. What’s the link between DAC, policy and dataset? A dataset is linked to one single policy. At the same time, one policy has a one to one relationship with a DAC. In this example, you can see that in this dataset page, we are only showing the information of one DAC (1 dataset - 1 DAC). However, the ratio of objects does not work the same in the other direction. One DAC can own multiple policy objects. And each policy object can be reused in several datasets. Thus, one DAC can manage one or more datasets. In this example, you can see that in this DAC page, we are showing all the datasets that are managed by one DAC (1 DAC - >400 datasets). EGA Data Access Committee Best Practices Which are the EGA DAC best practices? Refer to DAC Best Practices What happens if a DAC member changes institutions? EGA is committed to the protection and ownership of the data stored in our systems. We respect the institution's ownership of the data, and as such, if a DAC member changes institutions, the ownership of the data will not be transferred to the new institution. Therefore, before changing institutions, we request that the DAC contact add a new member who will replace them once they no longer work at the institution. This ensures that the data remains protected and is accessible to authorised personnel at the institution. To prevent potential data breaches and ensure adherence to GDPR regulations, it is essential that the European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is informed via the Helpdesk team of any changes to the Data Access Committee (DAC). This should be done in addition to any changes being made on the DAC portal. Data Controllers (as per the definition in the DPA) are also responsible for notifying the previous DAC of any modifications. Without proper notification, changes might not be automatically updated in our system, leading to the risk of incorrect permissions being applied and potential data access issues. Therefore, it is imperative that all Data Controllers follow this protocol to maintain data integrity and security. What happens if EGA detects an unresponsive DAC? EGA defines an unresponsive DAC as a DAC with one or more contacts who do not respond to data access requests. EGA has procedures in place to identify these types of DACs, escalate the issue, and attempt to reassign the DAC to a responsive contact. This is a crucial step in ensuring that data can be accessed and utilised by researchers. If EGA identifies an unresponsive DAC, the organisation will first try to resolve the issue by escalating it to the appropriate parties. This may involve attempting to reassign the DAC to a more responsive contact. Unfortunately, in situations where we cannot reassign the DAC, the dataset will be withdrawn from the public website and the files will be removed from our system. If an EGA ID is referenced in a publication, the EGA will take extra steps to ensure that the public is made aware of the data's unavailability. I don't want to receive an email notification for pending requests. How can I do that? If you are an EGA DAC with pending requests, you will always receive emails for new data access requests. However, the EGA understands that a request resolution can take some time, for this reason, if you add a comment (make sure you save it by clicking the APPLY button!) we will filter those requests at the time of sending the notification! How can I manage data access requests? What documentation does the DAC need to provide? Each dataset that is submitted to the EGA must be linked to a policy object. The policy is a Data Access Agreement (DAA), which defines the terms and conditions of using the dataset, such as how the data files should be stored once downloaded or details of publication embargoes that should be observed by the approved user. As part of the Data Access Agreement, information regarding the application can be captured to help inform the DAC when making its decision. For example, requestors could be asked to provide a proposed title for their research and a proposal of how the data will be used. By asking for provision of such information the DAC can be assured that the requestor fully understands any consents associated with the data. It is important that accounts created at the EGA, are created solely for those individuals that will be downloading the data from the EGA. As part of the data access request, we strongly encourage you to identify individuals that will need an account at the EGA in order to prevent sharing of login details, which is strictly prohibited under EGA user account policy. Such information can easily be captured in the DAA. NOTICE The data access agreement template below is provided for guidance only and should be adapted as you see fit to suit your own purpose. In the interest of promoting data sharing, we suggest that if an agreement cannot be met around clause 19 in this example that both parties should agree to remain silent, and that the clause should be removed from the agreement. Example DAA How can the DAC provide the DAA? The DAC should provide their own DAA when registering a policy. Data requestors will download this document and should fill it in and send it back to the DAC. Data access decisions should be based on such documentation. The DAA can be downloaded through the request data webpage. Once it has been filled in, the signed copy of the DAA can be uploaded back to the request data webpage and sent to the DAC for review. How can I grant access to the data? Once you receive a data access request, you can login to the DAC Portal. In this portal you will see all your pending requests and will be able to grant or decline access to the requestors. I am a member of the Data Access Committee. Could I approve somebody else to deal with the requests on my behalf? If you want to delegate data access decisions to someone else, make sure that the individual's account is officially registered as a member of the DAC. Remember that a DAC contact with an "admin" role can always add new members to an existing DAC, remove members, and modify contact details through the DAC Portal. Can I automatise the process of managing data access requests? The answer is yes! You can use a programmatic approach using our DAC API! Check out the DAC API specification! Data Breach What should a DAC do if they suspect a breach? If a DAC suspects a data breach of one or more of their datasets, they should immediately contact the EGA Helpdesk team at this link. The DAC must provide the following information when contacting the EGA Helpdesk team: A list of affected datasets An estimated date of the data breach (or interval of dates) A list of unauthorised users who accessed the data (if available). Otherwise, they can provide a list of authorised users for the affected datasets Any observations they would like to raise to the EGA team Once the DAC has contacted the EGA team, we will respond within 48 hours (please allow some leeway during peak times) and activate our data breach protocol. What can I expect from the EGA if they detect a breach? Once the EGA determines that a security incident has occurred, we will notify all DAC members that a data breach has been detected, and take steps to contain the incident. Containment approaches may include: Revoking a data provider's access to the EGA resources, such as by changing passwords. Removing affected EGA datasets from distribution, such as by withdrawing a dataset. Disabling certain functions or services, such as the EGA ingestion pipeline. Shutting down the system or disconnecting it from the network. After the incident has been contained, the EGA will determine whether it is necessary to eradicate components related to the incident. Finally, the EGA will enable recovery of the service to normal operation and confirm that all services are functioning normally.

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/what-is-dac

• 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

• Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the &#8220;Authorized Access&#8221; section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Objectives The Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) was designed to evaluate the hypothesis that amiodarone or a conservatively programmed shock-only, single-lead implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) would decrease the risk of death from any cause in a broad population of patients with mild-to-moderate heart failure. Background Patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) can die suddenly and unpredictably from arrhythmia despite the use of proven medical therapies, such as beta-blockade. Two approaches have been developed to prevent sudden death among patients with CHF: therapy with amiodarone and therapy with an ICD. However, most of the mortality data on amiodarone and ICD therapy at the time of the study had been obtained in clinical trials performed after myocardial infarction in patients without CHF or those with ventricular arrhythmias. Thus, more data was needed to guide these therapies in patients who did not meet these criteria. Participants There were a total of 2521 participants. 847 were randomly assigned to placebo, 845 to amiodarone, and 829 to ICD therapy. Design Before randomization, participants underwent electrocardiography, a 6-minute walk test, 24-hour ambulatory electrocardiography, liver and thyroid function studies, and chest radiography. Participants were required, if clinically reasonable, to receive treatment with a beta-blocker and an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, as well as an aldosterone antagonist, aspirin, and statins, when appropriate. Participants were randomly assigned in equal proportions to receive placebo, amiodarone, or a single-chamber ICD programmed to shock-only mode. Participants assigned to amiodarone or matching placebo began therapy as outpatients immediately after randomization. Placebo and amiodarone were administered as a loading dose of 800 mg/day for one week, 400 mg/day for three weeks, and then as a daily maintenance dosage according to weight and bradycardia status. Participants assigned to ICD therapy received their device a median of three days after randomization. The goal of ICD therapy was to treat only rapid, sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. Dual-chamber or biventricular devices, or antitachycardia or rate-response pacing therapies were not permitted. The ICD was uniformly programmed to have a detection rate of 187 beats per minute or more. Antibradycardia pacing was initiated only if the intrinsic rate decreased to less than 34 beats per minute. Median follow-up was 45.5 months. The primary end point was death from any cause. Secondary outcome measures included cardiac mortality, arrhythmic mortality, morbidity, quality of life, and incremental cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Each active treatment arm was compared to the placebo drug arm. Conclusions In participants with NYHA class II or III CHF and LVEF of 35% or less, amiodarone had no favorable effect on survival, whereas single-lead, shock-only ICD therapy reduced overall mortality by 23%.

  Study phs003654

• Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Network (IPFNet) Sildenafil Trial of Exercise Performance in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPFNet-STEP-IPF-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Objectives: The STEP-IPF study sought to evaluate whether treatment with sildenafil would improve walk distance, dyspnea, and quality of life in participants with advanced idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).Background: IPF is a chronic, progressive lung disease of unknown cause that is characterized by the histopathologic pattern of usual interstitial pneumonia. Progression to end-stage respiratory insufficiency and death within 5 years after the onset of symptoms is characteristic. To date, no pharmacologic therapies have definitively been shown to improve survival or quality of life in participants with this disease.Participants with severe IPF have abnormalities of the pulmonary vasculature leading to decreased levels of resting and exercise-induced production of nitric oxide. Since nitric oxide is a potent pulmonary vasodilator, reduced levels are associated with pulmonary vasoconstriction and impaired gas exchange. Sildenafil (Revatio, Pfizer) is a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor that stabilizes the second messenger of nitric oxide, cyclic guanosine monophosphate, which leads to pulmonary vasodilatation. Such vasodilatation could improve ventilation&#8211;perfusion matching and thus gas exchange in with IPF.Design: STEP-IPF was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of oral sildenafil (20 mg three times daily). Participants meeting eligibility criteria were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sildenafil or matched placebo with the use of a permuted-block design, with stratification according to clinical center. The primary outcome was the presence or absence of an improvement of at least 20% in the 6-minute walk distance at 12 weeks, as compared with baseline. Key secondary outcomes included changes in the 6-minute walk distance, degree of dyspnea, and quality of life.Screening procedures included the taking of a detailed history, a physical examination, spirometry, echocardiography, CT imaging, and measurements of lung volume on plethysmography, carbon monoxide diffusion capacity, and arterial blood gases. Eligible participants returned for an enrollment visit within 6 weeks after screening. All participants received an initial dose of a study drug at this visit and were monitored for 60 minutes for adverse effects. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 1, 6, and 12 weeks. After completion of the 12-week visit, all participants were started on treatment with open-label sildenafil. Visits were scheduled at 13, 18, and 24 weeks; at 28 weeks, serious adverse events and vital status were documented. Testing of the 6-minute walk distance was performed with the use of a standardized protocol at the time of screening and enrollment and at study visits at 6, 12, 18, and 24 weeks. Participants with pulse oxygen saturation below 88% received supplemental oxygen. Conclusions: This study did not show a benefit for sildenafil for the primary outcome. The presence of some positive secondary outcomes creates clinical equipoise for further research. There were small but significant differences in arterial oxygenation, carbon monoxide diffusion capacity, degree of dyspnea, and quality of life favoring the sildenafil group.

  Study phs004085

• WGS_skin_punches

  We wish to understand the degree of copy number alterations in normal human sun exposed skin. We have collected small punches of epithelia and using a bait set design have shown the these span a clone. WGS will provide copy number information on these.

  Study EGAS00001004465

• FFPE cohort with RNA-seq data of tumor samples

  This dataset contains RNA-seq raw data in fastq format from 14 tumor samples. The samples are from primary tumors or metastasis and represent various cancer entities. The samples are formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) treated. For target enrichment SureSelect XT Human All Exon V6 was used. The libraries were sequenced in paired-end mode (2 x 50 nt) on a NovaSeq6000 S2 flow cell.

  Dataset EGAD00001006781

• Epigenome-wide association study of cocaine use disorder in postmortem human brain tissue

  Analysis of cocaine use disorder (CUD) associated epigenome-wide DNA methylation (DNAm) alterations in human postmortem brain tissue of Brodmann Area 9. Tissue samples from N=21 CUD cases and N=21 individuals without CUD originating from the Douglas Bell Canada Brain Bank (DBCBB) were included. Epigenome-wide DNAm was investigated using the Illumina Infinium MethylationEPIC array.

  Dataset EGAD00010002396

• RNAseq of preneoplasia lung adenocarcinoma

  RNA sequencing of 168 pulmonary samples including lung preneoplasia atypical adenomatous hyperplasia (AAH, N=38), adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS, N=22), minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA, N=19) and invasive lung adenocarcinoma (ADC, N=38) and adjacent lung tissues (Normal, N=62).

  Study EGAS50000000271

• RNA sequencing of BCP-LBL patients samples

  In order to perform comprehensive transcriptomics and gene fusion analyses of a cohort of BCP-LBL patients, we performed RNA sequencing of 49 tissue samples from BCP-LBL patients. Because the material was available as FFPE, and had a relative low quality, we used a capture-based approach, where NGS libraries obtained from total RNA were captured in 4-plex, using a whole exome capture panel.

  Dataset EGAD50000000419

• Genomic Sequencing of Pediatric Rhaboid Cancers

  In this study, we sequenced the exomes of 35 rhabdoid tumors, highly aggressive cancers of early childhood. This study is part of a larger effort to characterize pediatric cancers as part of the Slim Initiative for Genomic Medicine (SIGMA) project.

  Study phs000508