69 results for "庄贵军.+(2008).+中国关系营销的文化解释与理论扩展.+管理学报,"

in 15.48 milliseconds.

• The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young Study (TEDDY)

  The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) Study investigates genetic and genetic-environmental interactions, including gestational infection or other gestational events, childhood infections and other environmental factors after birth, in relation to the development of pre-diabetic islet autoimmunity and type 1 diabetes (T1D). Beginning in 2002, a consortium of six centers assembled to participate in the development and implementation of studies to identify environmental factors that trigger the development of islet autoimmunity and T1D in genetically susceptible individuals. The TEDDY study screened around 400,000 newborns and recruited 7,749 neonates from the general population with a pre-determined T1D risk of 3% and 919 neonates with first degree relatives who have T1D and who have a pre-determined T1D risk of 10%. Thus, TEDDY proposes to follow over 8,000 participants across six clinical centers worldwide (Finland, Germany, Sweden and three in the United States) until the age of 15. Participants are followed every three months for islet autoantibody measurements with blood sampling until four years of age and then at least every six months until the age of 15. After the age of four, autoantibody positive subjects continue to be followed at 3 month intervals and autoantibody negative subjects are followed at six month intervals. In addition to the analysis of autoantibodies, additional data and sample collection is performed at each visit. The parents collect monthly stool samples in early childhood. The parents also fill out questionnaires at regular intervals in connection with study visits and record information about diet and health status in the child's TEDDY Book between visits. Continued long-term follow-up of the currently active TEDDY participants will provide important scientific information on early childhood diet, reported and measured infections, vaccinations, and psychosocial stressors that may contribute to the development of type 1 diabetes and islet autoimmunity. DNA extracted from the 9-month TEDDY blood sample was used for SNP genotyping. Samples were available for 7,082 participants. SNPs were genotyped by the Center for Public Health Genomics at the University of Virginia, using the Illumina ImmunoChip SNP microarray of around 196,000 SNPs selected from 186 regions associated with 12 autoimmune diseases (including T1D) (Hadley et al., 2015). "Data quality control (QC) steps included eliminating subjects with a low call rate (> 5% SNPs missing) and discrepancies between reported gender and prior genotyping at the HLA laboratory. Secondly, SNPs were removed from analysis due to low call rate, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium P value < 10-6, except for chromosome 6 due to HLA eligibility requirements)" (Törn et al., 2015). QC resulted in a total of 7,023 subjects with data on 176,586 SNPs. Additional information on the TEDDY study are available in the following articles: The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) Study. TEDDY Study Group. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 2008 and TEDDY - The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young - An Observational Clinical Trial. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 2006 Details of the TEDDY protocol can be found in The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY): Genetic Criteria and International Diabetes Risk Screening of 421,000 infants. Pediatric Diabetes, 2011

  Study phs001037

• Environmental Arsenic and Diabetes Mellitus (Chihuahua Cohort)

  The Chihuahua Cohort was established as part of a larger NIEHS-funded project that used laboratory models (tissue culture and mice) and human subjects to examine the association between exposure to arsenic and diabetes, including identification of mechanisms underlying this association. All procedures involving human subjects were approved by institutional review boards at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Cinvestav-IPN (Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico City, Mexico). All participants provided signed informed consent. A total of 1,160 adults (≥ 18 years old) with a minimum 5-year uninterrupted residency in the Chihuahua study area were recruited between 2008 and 2012. Samples of drinking water were obtained from the participants' households. Data on residency, occupation, drinking-water sources and use, smoking, alcohol consumption, and medical history were recorded by a study questionnaire. Spot urine and fasting venous blood were collected during medical examination that included an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) with blood drawn 2 hr after a 75-g glucose dose. Plasma from both fasting and 2-hr blood samples was collected. Body mass index (BMI) of each participant was calculated from body weight and height. BMI cutoffs of ≥ 25.0, ≥ 30, and < 18.5 kg/m2 were used to define overweight, obese, and underweight individuals, respectively. Participants' waist circumference was also measured. Blood pressure was assessed using a manual sphygmomanometer. Three measurements were taken at intervals of at least 1 min, with a 5-min rest before obtaining the first reading; the mean of the last two measurements was used. The concentrations of arsenic in drinking water and arsenic species in urine were measured by hydride generation-atomic absorption spectrometry. The limit of detection for As in water as well as for As species in urine was 0.01 µg As/L. Creatinine concentration in urine was determined using an established colorimetric assay. DNA was isolated from blood for genotyping analysis.The following measures were taken: glucose concentration in fasting blood (FBG) and in blood collected 2 hours into OGTT (2HBG); concentrations of triglycerides, HDL and total cholesterol (TC) in fasting plasma; and LDL was calculated using the Friedewald equation. Diabetes was classified by FPG ≥ 126 mg/dL, 2HPG ≥ 200 mg/dL, or self-reported diabetes diagnosis or medication use (WHO/International Diabetes Federation 2006). Prediabetes was defined as the absence of diabetes with FPG ≥ 110 mg/ dL or 2HPG ≥ 140 mg/dL. Elevated fasting levels of each lipid were defined as plasma TG ≥ 150 mg/dL, TC ≥ 200 mg/dL, and LDL ≥ 130 mg/dL. Fasting HDL < 40 mg/dL in men and < 50 mg/dL in women were designated as low. Hypertension was defined by systolic blood pressure (SBP) > 140 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > 90 mmHg, or self-reported use of anti-hypertensive medication. Genotyping analysis, which will be available in version 2 of this study, was carried out in a subset of ~600 subjects with focus on enzymes involved in the metabolism of arsenic, including AS3MT, GSTs.All data collected during the medical exams or generated by the above-described chemical and biochemical analysis of water, urine and blood/plasma, as well as results of the genotyping analysis are included in dbGaP. Data generated by metabolomics and epigenetic analyses in small subsets of the Chihuahua cohort are not included, but are available in published articles.

  Study phs002139

• National Cancer Institute (NCI) Adding Hispanics to Ongoing GWAS in Colorectal Cancer

  Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of colorectal cancer (CRC) have been instrumental in identifying a number of common susceptibility loci in Non Hispanic (NH)-White populations, and a NCI priority is to extend GWAS findings to other populations to address racial/ethnic disparities in cancer susceptibility. Currently, GWA studies of CRC in NH-Whites, Japanese and African-Americans are ongoing. We propose a complementary study to address this critical research area in Hispanics. Hispanics represent the fastest growing ethnic population in the U.S. and have been largely understudied in terms of genetic susceptibility to cancer. There are noted differences in incidence, survival and mortality in CRC by ethnic/racial groups. Hispanics often present with CRC at a younger age and have a significantly greater incidence of stage IV tumors or metastatic disease compared to NH-Whites. We propose to conduct a large, cost-efficient, population-based GWAS in Hispanics by building upon existing NIH-funded resources, the Colon Cancer Family Registry (Colon CFR) and the Multiethnic Cohort Study (MEC). We plan to recruit 2,500 Hispanic men and women diagnosed with CRC between 01/2008 to present using cancer registries in California, physican referrals and familial referrals. Risk factor/diet questionnaires, pathology reports, Oragene saliva samples (for genotyping), optional blood samples (for genotyping and biometric analysis) and tumor blocks (for MSI testing) will be collected using methodologies developed in the Colon CFR/MEC. Cases of CRC in the MEC (currently 473; anticipated 600 at end) will also be included. Population-based Hispanic individuals without a diagnosis of CRC participating in other GWA studies in the MEC (n=3,900, U01HG004726, Haiman) will be used as controls. We will genotype all 3,100 cases using the Illumina 1M array and use available genotype and epidemiologic data collected on 3,900 controls. Our statistical analyses will include: single-SNP and haplotype effects, gene-environment interactions and heterogeneity by MSI, tumor subtype and family history of CRC. We will replicate findings in a second-stage using CRC cases and controls from Mexico (1,000 cases and 1,000 controls, EU FP7 funding, CHIBCHA, Carvajal-Carmona/Tomlinson). We will also examine heterogeneity of the risk estimates by ethnicity/race by leveraging GWA data on NH-Whites (2,142 cases, 1,909 controls, U01 CA122839, Casey), (4,000 cases, 6,000 NH-White controls, UK-CHIBCHA, Tomlinson), Colombians (2,000 cases and 2,000 controls, CHIBCHA), Japanese (1,000 cases and 1,000 controls) and African-Americans (1,500 cases and 1,500 controls, R01CA126895, Le Marchand). We will genotype replicated significant SNPs in our main and combined analysis in several Hispanic populations (note: studies funded by EU or NIH for data collection but not GWAS), including 800 Puerto Ricans, 2,000 Brazilians, 2,000 Argentineans and 3,000 Spanish/Portuguese, to assess generalizability of findings. We will examine the differences in inflammatory gene transcription dynamics in leukocytes (from blood sample collection) by fatigue level (as assessed from study questionnaire data). This study will have a high impact by addressing the key question of racial/ethnic disparities related to genetic susceptibility to CRC, will provide translational guidelines on biological mechanisms during the cancer survivorship period to increase quality of life among cancer survivors, and will enable further growth and investment into research among Hispanics by providing a resource of genetic data and biospecimens, which is lacking.

  Study phs001193

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Hypertonic Saline (HS) Trial Shock Study and Traumatic Brain Injury Study (TBI) (ROC-HS/TBI-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession. Access differs from many other dbGaP accessions.ObjectivesShock: To determine if prehospital administration of 7.5% hypertonic saline with 6% Dextran-70 (HSD) or 7.5% hypertonic saline alone (HS), compared to current standard therapy with normal saline (NS), as an initial resuscitation fluid, affects survival following traumatic injury with hypovolemic shock.TBI: To determine whether out-of-hospital administration of hypertonic fluids improves neurologic outcome following severe traumatic brain injury (TBI).Background Trauma is the leading cause of death among North Americans between the ages of 1 and 44 years. The majority of these deaths result from hypovolemic shock or severe brain injury. Participants in hypovolemic shock develop a state of systemic tissue ischemia then a subsequent reperfusion injury at the time of fluid resuscitation. Conventional resuscitation involves the IV administration of a large volume of isotonic or slightly hypotonic (lactated ringers, LR) solutions beginning in the prehospital setting. Although not conclusive, prior studies have suggested that alternative resuscitation with hypertonic saline (7.5%) solutions may reduce morbidity or mortality in these participants. Furthermore, hypertonic fluids may have specific advantages in the brain-injured participant, as they may aid in the rapid restoration of cerebral perfusion and prevent extravascular fluid sequestration, thereby limiting secondary brain injury. In addition, recent studies have demonstrated that hypertonicity significantly alters the activation of inflammatory cells, an effect that may reduce subsequent organ injury from ischemia-reperfusion and decrease nosocomial infection. The majority of previous clinical trials have focused on the use of HSD. The potential for 7.5% saline alone (HS) to have similar effects has not been well studied. Removal of the dextran component may enhance the anti-inflammatory effects of this solution, which could improve secondary outcomes such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multiple organ failure syndrome (MOFS) and rates of nosocomial infections. Participants Shock: There were 893 participants that were randomized (853 enrolled).TBI: There were 1282 participants enrolled and 6-month outcomes data were available for 1087 (85%).Design Shock: Multicenter, randomized, blinded clinical trials involving 114 emergency medical services agencies in North America within the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium were conducted from May 2006 to August 2008. Initial resuscitation fluid, 250 mL of either 7.5% saline per 6% dextran 70 (hypertonic saline/dextran, HSD), 7.5% saline (hypertonic saline, HS), or 0.9% saline (normal saline, NS) administered by out-of-hospital providers. Primary outcome was 28-day survival. On the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board, the study was stopped early (23% of proposed sample size) for futility and potential safety concern.TBI: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials involving 114 North American emergency medical services agencies within the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium were conducted between May 2006 and May 2009. A single 250-mL bolus of 7.5% saline/6% dextran 70 (HSD), 7.5% saline (HS), or 0.9% saline (NS) initiated in the out-of-hospital setting. The main outcome measure was a six-month neurologic outcome based on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) (dichotomized as >4 or ≤4). The study was terminated by the data and safety monitoring board after randomization of 1331 participants, having met prespecified futility criteria.Conclusions Shock: Among injured participants with hypovolemic shock, initial resuscitation fluid treatment with either HS or HSD, compared with NS, did not result in superior 28-day survival. However, interpretation of these findings is limited by the early stopping of the trial (PMID: 21178763).TBI: Among participants with severe TBI not in hypovolemic shock, initial resuscitation with either HS or HSD, compared with normal saline, did not result in superior 6-month neurologic outcome or survival (PMID: 20924011).

  Study phs003777

• Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium (T1DGC): Genome-Wide Association Study in Type 1 Diabetes, 2008

  Cases with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) in the UK, were part of the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (WTCCC) - http://www.wtccc.org.uk - that first reported in 2007: Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (2007) Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls. Nature, 447, 661-678. [PubMed: 17554300] In this genome-wide association study (GWAS), funded by the NIH and JDRF, and sponsored by the Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium (T1DGC), we were able to extend the case and control groups used in the WTCCC, with the intention of performing a well-powered meta-analysis. The study is written up as: Barrett, J.C., Clayton, D.G., Concannon, P., Akolkar, B., Cooper, J.D., Erlich, H.A., Julier, C., Morahan, G., Nerup, J., Nierras, C., Plagnol, V., Pociot, F., Schuilenburg, H., Smyth, D.J., Stevens, H., Todd, J.A., Walker, N.M., Rich, S.S. and The Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium Genome-wide association study and meta-analysis find that over 40 loci affect risk of type 1 diabetes. Nature Genetics, PMID: 19430480. Resources - data: * Case data from this study is deposited here (i.e. in dbGaP) * Control data from this experiment - with subjects from the 1958 British Birth Cohort - is deposited with the European Genotype Archive (EGA): http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ega/ from where the WTCCC data is also available. * A complete description of how to request all components of the meta-analysis is available at: http://www.t1dbase.org/page/PosterView/display/poster_id/324 * Additional genetic data on the same case subjects, including some HLA types, are available from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation/Wellcome Trust Diabetes and Inflammation Laboratory (JDRF/WT-DIL): http://www-gene.cimr.cam.ac.uk/todd/ Resources - samples: Case and control DNA samples are also available: * Case DNA samples are available from the JDRF/WT-DIL, as above, and will be available from the NIDDK Genetics Repository at Rutgers: https://www.niddkrepository.org * Control DNA samples are available from the 1958 British Birth Cohort (aka National Child Development Study): http://www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/studies.asp?section=000100020003 Use restrictions: There are access limitations to both data and samples, in order to keep their use in line with subjects' consent.

  Study phs000180

• About

  About What's the EGA? The European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) is a global network for permanent archiving and sharing of personally identifiable genetic, phenotypic, and clinical data generated for the purposes of biomedical research projects or in the context of research-focused healthcare systems. Jointly managed by the European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) in Cambridge (UK) and the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) in Barcelona, we aim to advance biomedical research and promote personalised medicine worldwide by enabling discovery of and access to human genomic and health research data. The EGA contains data collected from individuals whose consent agreements authorise data release for specific research use to bona fide researchers. We ensure strict security measures to control access to the data and maintain patient confidentiality. With expertise in data management and technical infrastructure, we promote FAIR data reuse and enable researchers to share their data securely. By leveraging public funding and our strategic partnerships, the EGA provides a free service for permanent data storage, data discovery, and secure data access. In addition, we foster a federated network to provide transnational access to human research data in compliance with legal frameworks. For additional information about the EGA, please contact: Helen Parkinson and Mallory Freeberg EMBL European Bioinformatics Institute Arcadi Navarro, Roderic Guigó, and Jordi Rambla Center for Genomic Regulation History The European Genome-phenome Archive was launched in 2008 at the European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), an outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), to address an identified need for archiving and sharing the results of genome-wide association studies from the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium. With the signing of a memorandum of understanding in 2013 and a formal agreement in 2016, the EGA became a joint project of EMBL-EBI and the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG). The two institutes work together to support the EGA services, including supporting submissions, website, strategic leadership, and data infrastructure developments. In 2022, the Federated EGA was officially launched with the signature of the first five countries: Finland, Germany, Norway, Spain, and Sweden. With more than 20 additional nodes worldwide preparing to join, the Federated EGA aims to become the largest human omics data sharing initiative towards understanding human health and disease. EGA overview If you're a researcher you may need to deposit, manage, or access genomic data in a secure and regulated way. The European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) is a platform that facilitates these processes, ensuring that sensitive data is stored and shared in accordance with legal and ethical regulations. Submission process To start a submission, you need to become an EGA submitter. For that, you’ll need to sign a Data Processing Agreement (DPA) with us, that defines the terms and conditions under which your data will be processed and shared within the EGA system. The access to each study is controlled by its Data Access Committee (DAC). The DAC is responsible for managing data access requests and ensuring that the release of data is in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Please, note that once your data is released, all public metadata related to your study and dataset(s) will be searchable on the EGA website. However, the files are only accessible under controlled access, which means that a DAC has to agree to a previous data access request. Request process It is possible to submit an access request to data stored at the EGA. The DAC assigned to the study will assess the request and, if approved, grant access to the data. Requesters must provide sufficient justification for your request and comply with the intended data usage in order to get access to it. Each dataset is covered by a Data Access Agreement (DAA) that defines the terms and conditions of use for the specified dataset/s. The DAA is created and provided by the DAC, and must be signed by the individual requesting access to the given dataset/s. Download process Once the request for access is approved, the data and metadata can be downloaded. The EGA offers various download options to fit the needs: it is possible to preview files without downloading them, download specific files of interest, or even download terabytes of data. Overall, the EGA provides a secure and regulated environment for depositing, managing, and accessing human data. Regardless of the role - submitter, DAC member, or requester - the EGA provides assistance for each while ensuring that sensitive data is managed in an ethical and responsible manner. More information on how EGA handles data is available in the EGA dataflow.

  Documentation about/ega

• Research Program on Genes, Environment and Health (RPGEH)

  The Kaiser Permanente Research Program on Genes, Environment, and Health (RPGEH) is a resource developed to facilitate research on genetic and environmental factors on common diseases and healthy aging. The RPGEH resource links biospecimens, health surveys, and comprehensive electronic medical records on broadly consented adult members of Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Plan, Northern California Region (KPNC). KPNC is an integrated health care delivery system with a membership of approximately 3.3 million people in northern California. The membership of KPNC is representative of the general population in the 14 county area in which facilities are located, although extremes of income are underrepresented. At the end of 2013, the RPGEH resource included: (1) demographic and behavioral surveys from over 430,000 participants; (2) biospecimens (DNA, serum, plasma, and/or saliva) from over 204,000 participants, including over 13,000 pregnant women; (3) genome-wide genotype data (70 billion SNP genotypes) on over 100,000 participants, including the Genetic Epidemiology Research on Adult Health and Aging (GERA) cohort; and (4) the longitudinal electronic medical records of the participants. The RPGEH was developed beginning in 2005 at the Division of Research of Kaiser Permanente Northern California by Catherine Schaefer (Director), Neil Risch (Co-Director), Lisa Croen, Eric Jorgenson, Lawrence Kushi, Charles Quesenberry, Sarah Rowell, Carol Somkin, Stephen Van den Eeden, Larry Walter, and Rachel Whitmer. Funding of the RPGEH was provided to C. Schaefer (PI) and N. Risch (co-PI) by the Wayne and Gladys Valley Foundation, The Ellison Medical Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, and the Kaiser Permanente National and Regional Community Benefit Programs. The GERA cohort was funded by a grant from NIH to RPGEH and UCSF (RC2 AG036607; C. Schaefer and N. Risch, PIs). At the time of the award of the RC2 project in late 2009, the RPGEH had established a cohort of about 140,000 individuals who had answered a detailed survey, provided saliva samples for extraction of DNA, and given broad consent for the use of their data in studies of health and disease. Survey and Cohort Recruitment. Initially, the RPGEH developed electronic disease registries to enable identification of phenotypes, using algorithms applied to EMR data. In 2007, the RPGEH mailed a four page survey to 1.9 million adult (≥ 18 years old) members of KPNC who had been members for two years or more, to obtain data on demographic and behavioral factors complementary to the clinical data in the EMR. The survey materials included a cover letter introducing the RPGEH, a two page list of Frequently Asked Questions, and the survey, which included questions on demographic factors such as education, race-ethnicity, income and marital status, dietary factors, physical activity, smoking, and alcohol consumption, as well as reproductive history and reproductive health. Members whose electronic medical records indicated a preference for written communications in Chinese or Spanish received survey materials both in English and a Chinese or Spanish translation. Approximately 400,000 completed surveys were returned. Saliva Sample Collection. Beginning in July 2008, respondents to the survey were asked to sign and return a consent form and authorization for use and disclosure of protected health information. The consent form authorized broad use of biospecimens, survey data, and data from participants' electronic health records for use in studies of genetic and environmental influences on health and disease. Respondents who returned completed consent forms were mailed (Oragene) saliva collection kits; more than 132,000 saliva samples were collected in two years. Completed saliva kits were scanned and archived in a temporary biorepository at the KPNC Division of Research. In late 2009, the RPGEH began collection of saliva samples from the California Men's Health Study (CMHS), a cohort that had been previously assembled in 2002-2003 and had been excluded from the RPGEH survey mailing with the intent of later adding CMHS participants to the assembled RPGEH cohort. The CMHS was developed to facilitate research on prostate cancer and other conditions in older men; the study protocol is described in Enger, et al., 2006. It enrolled and surveyed more than 40,000 men in KPNC, ages 45-69 years, who were members of KPNC during 2002-2003. CMHS men completed two mailed surveys with demographic and behavioral data similar to that of the RPGEH. The data on analogous variables were reconciled and integrated with the data derived from the RPGEH cohort for use in the RPGEH resource. By 2011, RPGEH collected approximately 15,400 saliva samples from men participating in the CMHS. RPGEH Access and Collaborations Website and Procedures. The RPGEH maintains a web portal for inquiries and applications for collaboration and access to data. The url is: https://rpgehportal.kaiser.org/. RPGEH has an application process and an Access Review Committee that reviews applications for collaboration and use. For more information, please contact RPGEH through the website.

  Study phs000788

• A Genome-Wide Association Study in Patients Experiencing Musculoskeletal Adverse Events on NCIC CTG Trial MA.27 Evaluating Aromatase Inhibitors as Adjuvant Therapy in Early Breast Cancer. A Collaboration Between the NIH Pharmacogenetics Research Network and the RIKEN Yokohama Institute Center for Genomic Medicine.

  Source of Patients The source of the patients for this genome-wide case control study was MA.27, which was conducted as a multi-cooperative group effort under the auspices of the NCI Breast Cancer Intergroup of North America. The NCIC Clinical Trials Group (CTG) serves as the coordinating group, with participation by the NCI-sponsored North Central Cancer Treatment Group, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Southwest Oncology Group, and Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB). MA.27 involved postmenopausal women with histologically confirmed and completely resected invasive breast cancer with surgical margins clear of invasive carcinoma and DCIS in the following TMN categories (AJCC Version 6): pT1, pT2, pT3; pNx, pN0, pN1, pN2, pN3 (only when the sole basis is presence of 10 or more involved axillary nodes); MO. The primary tumor must have been ER and/or progesterone receptor positive. Patients were stratified by lymph node status at diagnosis, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, and trastuzumab use and were randomized to 5 years of adjuvant therapy with anastrozole or exemestane. The trial was activated on May 26, 2003, and reached its accrual objectives on July 31, 2008, after the randomization of 6827 North American patients, with the majority (79%) providing DNA and consent for genetic testing. Non-North American patients were also entered by the International Breast Cancer Study Group but they did not contribute DNA. From 2003 to December 21, 2004, patients also underwent a second randomization to celecoxib 400 mg twice daily or placebo but, after the entry of 1,622 patients, this treatment was discontinued because of reports of increased cardiovascular risk associated with celecoxib. Case Definition for Musculoskeletal Adverse Events Cases were defined to have had at least one of the following six MSAE): 1. pain - joint, 2. pain - muscle, 3. pain - bone, 4. arthritis, 5. joint - function, 6. musculoskeletal - other. Cases were required to have at least grade 3 toxicity, according to the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0, or go off treatment for any grade of the six MSAEs; and were required to have had an MSAE within the first two years (i.e., a MSAE occurring after 2 years was not be considered a case). Subjects were excluded from the case group who met the case definition while on celecoxib or in the three months after stopping celecoxib but subjects were allowed to be cases if they developed their first MSAE more than three months after stopping celecoxib. Study Design The design was a nested matched case-control study with two controls selected for each case. Random matching from the potential control group (i.e., risk-set sampling such that controls had at least the same length of followup as the timing of the case event) was done by matching the case on the following factors: 1. treatment arm (exemestane vs. anastrozole, blinded), 2. prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), 3. age at start of treatment (+/- 5 years), 4. Celecoxib allocation (yes vs. no). Attempts were made to exactly match each case with two controls according to the above criteria. If, however, controls could not be exactly matched, "close" matching was used to define a distance between each case and all potential controls in an optimal matching algorithm. Race is a potential confounding factor, and 94% of the MA.27 population is Caucasian, 3% are Black, 1% Asian, 1% American Indian, and 1% are of unknown race. Because there are so few non-Caucasian participants, was restricted to only Caucasians. Following identification of cases and controls, the list was sent to the CALGB Pathology Coordinating Office (PCO) at Ohio State University Medical Center for plating of the samples. Other patient factors that might influence the association of SNP genotypes with a MSAE, either as confounding factors or as effect modifiers, were included as investigational covariates. These include 1. body mass index (BMI), 2. bisphosphonate use, 3. fractures in past 10 years, 4. baseline ECOG performance status, 5. prior hormone replacement therapy, 6. prior adjuvant radiotherapy, and 7. prior taxane treatment. An Honest Broker Process was utilized to ensure patient confidentiality. Genotype Assays and Quality Control A GWAS was performed with the Illumina Human610-Quad at the RIKEN Center for Genomic Medicine. The DNA for all of the samples were adjusted to a concentration of 50 to 100 ng/µL in a final volume of 50 µL. The 96-well plates were designed to have a unique distribution pattern with x duplicates per plate to evaluate genotype concordance. Samples with <98% call rate were removed from analyses. SNPs with ambiguous call will be excluded using the following criteria: 1. low signal intensity of each allele, 2. low cluster separation score, 3. SNP call rate <0.98, 4. SNPs with Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium p-value <0.001 were excluded. X-chromosome SNPs were used to validate female sex and quality control measures were examined across the different submitting centers. For all pairs of subjects, the percentage of matching genotypes were computed to screen for unexpected duplicate samples. All SNPs found to be associated with MSAE were subjected to visual inspection of the cluster plots to verify that the genotype clustering was adequate.

  Study phs000210

• Providing safe access to sensitive human data across borders: Federated EGA becomes a reality

  Enabling discovery and access to sensitive data across national boundaries is vital for improving human health. It enables more powerful and efficient research by increasing the volume and diversity of data available for analysis. It allows us to better understand the causes of diseases – cancer, rare diseases, infectious diseases like COVID-19 – and develop new medicines and treatments. Sensitive human omics data are typically generated by research initiatives and shared using specialist repositories which provide services for data submission, discovery, and access. The EGA is one such repository. Established in 2008 at EMBL’s European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) in the UK, since 2012 the EGA (“Central EGA”) has been jointly managed by EMBL-EBI and the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) in Spain. Many countries have emerging personalised medicine programmes which generate data from national initiatives. These programmes are driving a transition in human genomics from being research-driven to receiving funding through healthcare. Data generated in a clinical context are subject to stricter governance than research data and must follow national data protection legislation. To solve these challenges, the Federated EGA provides a network of connected resources to enable transnational discovery of and access to human omics data for research, while also respecting jurisdictional data protection regulations. In this way, the Federated EGA infrastructure supports the goals of European initiatives such as the 1+ Million Genomes initiative (1+MG), the European Health Data Space, and a number of EU-funded 1+MG implementation projects including Beyond 1 Million Genomes. The Federated EGA is made up of “Nodes” – typically nationally funded and operated – which store and manage data locally while allowing global discovery within the Federated EGA network. Since 2016, multiple parallel efforts, supported by ELIXIR and other transnational and national initiatives, have created technical and legal frameworks for establishing the Federated EGA. In 2022, the first five Nodes – Finland, Germany, Norway, Spain, and Sweden – officially joined the Federated EGA by signing Federated EGA Collaboration Agreements with Central EGA. The Finnish FEGA Node is operated by CSC - IT Center for Science and provides data management services according to national laws and the requirements of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). These services provide tools and support for the whole life-cycle of sensitive research data from collating to analysis, publication, and authorised re-use. The development of the services has been a joint effort with the other Nordic nodes within NeIC's Tryggve and Heilsa projects, and funded by Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture and projects coordinated by ELIXIR Finland. Read more about Finnish FEGA signing. The German Human Genome-Phenome Archive (GHGA) strives to provide a national infrastructure as well as an ethical and legal framework that balances FAIR omics data usage and data protection needs for Germany. As a Germany-wide consortium funded by the German Research Foundation under the umbrella of the NFDI association, GHGA combines the expertise of 21 universities and research institutions to form a federated national infrastructure. Read more about GHGA signing. The German Human Genome-Phenome Archive (GHGA) strives to provide a national infrastructure as well as an ethical and legal framework that balances FAIR omics data usage and data protection needs for Germany. As a Germany-wide consortium funded by the German Research Foundation under the umbrella of the NFDI association, GHGA combines the expertise of 21 universities and research institutions to form a federated national infrastructure. Read more about GHGA signing. In Norway, a key component of the infrastructure is the services of The Sensitive Data Service (TSD) offered by USIT at University of Oslo. The Federated EGA Norway Node is developed by ELIXIR Norway and operated by the University of Oslo as the responsible legal entity. Core software modules are developed jointly with the other Nordic nodes in the NeIC Tryggve and Heilsa projects. Read more about FEGA Norway signing. The Spanish FEGA (es-FEGA) is a national service for storing sensitive biomedical data in Spain. Supported by the Spanish Institute of Bioinformatics (INB) in collaboration with Central EGA, sensitive research datasets are primarily hosted at the Barcelona Supercomputing Centre facilities. The Swedish Sensitive Data Archive is a secure data archive and sharing platform for sensitive datasets. It was developed by the National Bioinformatics Infrastructure Sweden (NBIS) in collaboration with other Nordic ELIXIR Nodes through the Tryggve and Heilsa projects funded by NeIC and coordinated with Central EGA through ELIXIR. Read more about the Swedish Node signing. The Swedish Sensitive Data Archive is a secure data archive and sharing platform for sensitive datasets. It was developed by the National Bioinformatics Infrastructure Sweden (NBIS) in collaboration with other Nordic ELIXIR Nodes through the Tryggve and Heilsa projects funded by NeIC and coordinated with Central EGA through ELIXIR. Read more about the Swedish Node signing. By providing a solution for secure and efficient management of human omics data, the Federated EGA aims to foster data reuse, enable reproducibility, accelerate biomedical research, and improve human health. Find out more Interested in setting up your own Federated EGA Node? Check out the FEGA Onboarding Knowledge Base for more information. The ELIXIR Federated Human Data Community is a great entry point for anyone interested in learning more about the Federated EGA. You can: Join the ELIXIR Federated Human Data Community mailing list (select “Human Data”) Attend the ELIXIR Federated Human Data Community calls

  Blog safe-access-to-sensitive-human-data-federated-ega

• Federated EGA

  Federated EGA Federated EGA Index Overview Map of FEGA status across the world Current status of the FEGA Network Documentation Overview Federated EGA is a global network of repositories enabling secure discovery and access to sensitive human data. Our vision is to accelerate scientific discovery and healthcare breakthroughs by creating the go-to worldwide sensitive human data resource. Our values are: Privacy & Trust: Ensuring privacy of data subjects, security of services and acting with integrity to build community trust.FAIRness: Driving reuse of data through standardisation of metadata and clear access policies.Diversity: Expanding our network and representing global diversity in the data we host to bring benefits worldwide. Federated EGA - European by name, global by nature Federated EGA collaborates with European and global initiatives (GA4GH, ELIXIR, 1+ Million Genomes Framework, GDI), demonstrating that a network for transnational discovery of and access to human data is possible. By providing a solution to emerging challenges around secure and efficient management of human omics and associated data, the FEGA Network fosters data reuse, enables reproducibility, and accelerates biomedical research. For general enquiries or to request more information about Federated EGA, please reach out to us here. Read more about the Federated EGA in our commentary in Nature Genetics! Learn more about setting up a Federated EGA Node in our onboarding documentation. Map of FEGA status across the world Current status of the FEGA Network Node Description Joined CEGA Central EGA is managed by the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) and EMBL-EBI. The EGA has been a trusted repository for sensitive data since 2008. CEGA coordinates the FEGA network, hosts central services and the EGA catalogue. 2022 Finland FEGA Finland is hosted by CSC - IT Center for Science Ltd., which is the national ELIXIR Node in Finland. CSC is a state-owned company specialising in providing high-quality IT infrastructure and services for Finnish higher education and research. 2022 Germany The German Human Genome-Phenome archive (GHGA) is part of the German National Research Data Infrastructure (NFDI). It is coordinated by the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and includes over 20 academic partners. 2022 Norway FEGA Norway is a service by ELIXIR Norway, the Norwegian node of the European organisation ELIXIR. University of Oslo as a partner institution in ELIXIR Norway is hosting the service relying on the TSD infrastructure for sensitive data. ELIXIR Norway is a consortium of 5 Norwegian universities and is coordinated by University of Bergen. 2022 Spain FEGA Spain is co-hosted by the Barcelona Supercomputer Center (BSC) and the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), both part of ELIXIR Spain and the Spanish National Infrastructure for Personalised Medicine associated with Science and Technology (IMPaCT). 2022 Sweden FEGA Sweden is hosted by the National Bioinformatics Infrastructure Sweden (NBIS), which legally is part of Uppsala University. NBIS forms the bioinformatics platform at SciLifeLab and constitutes the Swedish node of the European organisation ELIXIR. 2022 Poland FEGA Poland is hosted by Biobank Lodz, which is part of University of Lodz. Biobank Lodz is an element of the infrastructure of the Regional Digital Medicine Centers established by the Medical Research Agency. 2022 Portugal FEGA Portugal is managed by BioData.pt, the distributed infrastructure for Life and Health data for Portugal. This entity is a non-profit association of 15 life sciences R&I organisations spread across the country, and the home of ELIXIR Node in Portugal. 2023 Canada Canadian Genome-phenome Archive is part of the Pan Canadian Genome Library, with the mandate to allow the secure and responsible sharing and analysis of Canadian genomic information. 2024 Switzerland Swiss FEGA is hosted by SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, which is the national ELIXIR Node in Switzerland, on behalf of the Swiss FEGA Partnership which includes 4 other key partners (ETH Zurich, Health 2030 Genome Center, Swiss Data Science Center and Switch). 2025 Documentation Title Version Description Mission, vision, values Federated EGA Mission, vision, values 1.0 The official Mission-Vision-Values statement for FEGA, produced and formally approved by the FEGA Strategic Committee in September 2025. Structure and Organisation Federated EGA Structure and Organisation 2.0 The structure of the FEGA network and service expectations, responsibilities and commitments. FEGA is organised into three tiers: Central EGA, FEGA Nodes and FEGA Affiliates. Strategic Committee Federated EGA Strategic Committee 1.1 Terms of reference for the FEGA Strategic Committee describe the purpose and objectives of the committee, which is to provide direction and strategic planning for the FEGA network. The committee receives input from, and provides feedback for the EGA Strategic Committee. Operations Committee Federated EGA Operations Committee 1.1 Terms of reference for the FEGA Operations Committee describe the purpose and objectives of the committee, which is to review operational performance and coordinate technical roadmaps of FEGA Nodes and Central EGA. The committee receives advice from, and provides operational reporting to the FEGA Strategic Committee. Guidelines Node Operations guidelines 2.1 An overview of the operational areas which require resources in order to create a FEGA Node. The document is based on more than 15 years' experience of EMBL-EBI and CRG operating the EGA and initial expericences of the inaugural FEGA Nodes. The operational areas of responsability are in line with the FEGA Maturity Model, which guides establishment and operation of FEGA Nodes. Collaboration Federated EGA Node Collaboration Agreement 1.3 Nodes are welcome to make a copy of this current version of the CA to start its review with their legal teams and understand the responsibilities of joining FEGA. Nevertheless, this version (the one with a watermark) shall not be signed: the official version needs to be obtained from FEGA prior signing through its official channels.

  Documentation about/projects-and-funders/federated-ega