281 results for "10.37717+DELTAS+Africa+grant+DOI+SACIDS"

in 23.75 milliseconds.

• Broccoli Sprouts Extracts Trial (BEST-COPD-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: To establish a safe and tolerable dose of sulforaphane that effects in vivo antioxidants via Nrf2 for development as a potential novel treatment for participants with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).Background: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), caused primarily by smoking, is the third leading cause of death in the United States and world-wide. Surprisingly, there are few treatments available to address the pathobiology of COPD other than cessation of smoking. The development and progression of COPD are associated with increased inflammatory response(s) and increased oxidative stress in the lung. Thus, one approach to the development of novel therapies is the stimulation of endogenous antioxidant defense mechanisms.Nuclear factor erythroid-2-related factor 2 (NFE2L2/Nrf2) is a transcription factor activated by oxidative stress. Nrf2 activity promotes anti-oxidant enzymes, and anti-oxidant enzymes play key roles in cellular defenses. Sulforaphane, a derivative of broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables, has been shown to stimulate Nrf2 activity in both in vivo and in vitro experiments. For example, activation of Nrf2 protected mice from developing emphysema after chronic smoke exposure and decreased oxidative stress. Similarly, activation of Nrf2 in human COPD lung cells resulted in decreased oxidative stress. Therefore, this study was designed to assess whether daily ingestion of sulforaphane by COPD participants for four weeks increased Nrf2 activity in alveolar macrophages and bronchial epithelial cells. Participants: There were a total of 89 participants randomized to one of three treatment arms. Of these, 31 participants were randomized to the placebo arm, and 29 participants were randomized to the each of the sulforaphane arms. One participant withdrew from the placebo arm, therefore, a total of 88 participants completed the study.Design: Participants were assigned to receive sulforaphane at 25 micromoles (4.4mg), sulforaphane at 150 micromoles (26.6 mg), or placebo (microcellulose) once daily by mouth. Computer-generated treatment assignments were blinded to participants, clinical staff, and study staff. Doses were back-filled with methylcellulose and presented in similar capsules to compensate for appearance and weight differences in sulforaphane and placebo treatments arms.There were a total of five study visits over the six-week study period. Prior to randomization, participants were assessed for eligibility, which included baseline data collection. Participants provided medical histories, underwent a physical examination, pre-and-post bronchodilator spirometry, lung volume measurements, carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DLCO), and pulse oximetry over the six-week study period. Follow up data and biospecimens were collected at the final visit, which was targeted for four weeks after randomization. Two fiberoptic bronchoscopies were performed under sedation to collect endobronchial brushings and bronchoalveolar lavage used to isolate alveolar macrophages and bronchial epithelial cells. The first bronchoscopy was performed on the day of randomization, and the second bronchoscopy was performed the day after the final visit. In addition, nasal brushings were obtained prior to bronchoscopy to isolate nasal epithelial cells. The primary outcomes were changes in Nrf2 target gene expression at four weeks in alveolar macrophages and bronchial epithelial cells. The target genes for the primary outcome were NQ01, H01, AKR1C1, and AKR1C3. Secondary outcomes included the evaluation of: expression of other genes in the Nrf2/Keap1 pathway (e.g. Nrf2/NFE2L2, KEAP1, and SLPI), markers of oxidative stress (e.g., isoprostane and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances) in plasma and expired breath condensate, and cytokine profiles in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Conclusions: Sulforaphane administered at four weeks doses of 25umoles and 150umoles to participants with COPD did not significantly increase Nrf2 target gene expression in alveolar macrophages or bronchial epithelial cells. In addition, changes in oxidative stress markers and the expression of other genes in the Nrf2/Keap1 pathway were not statistically significant between the treatment groups.Wise RA, Holbrook JT, Criner G, et al. Lack of Effect of Oral Sulforaphane Administration on Nrf2 Expression in COPD: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo Controlled Trial. Vij N, ed. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11(11):e0163716. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163716 (PMID: 27832073; PMID: 28350841).

  Study phs004022

• 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

• After the completion of CINECA, EUCANCan, and euCanSHare. What's next?

  CINECA, EUCANCan, and euCanSHare were part of the EUCAN Cluster, made up of six projects that received funding under the same Horizon 2020 call. All EUCAN projects (CINECA, EUCANCan, EUCAN-Connect, euCanSHare, Receptor Plus, and ReCoDID) were aimed at facilitating data reuse and knowledge discovery by enhancing data exchange and long-term collaboration in the health field. Here are some highlights about EGA’s contribution to these projects. CINECA: advances in Federated discovery and infrastructure for cohorts CINECA (Common Infrastructure for National Cohorts in Europe, Canada, and Africa) developed a federated cloud-based infrastructure for making genomic and biomolecular data accessible. The project has assembled a virtual cohort of 1.4 million individuals from sources such as the EGA, CanDIG and H3Africa. The EGA–CRG co-leaded a work package Work Package 1 on Federated Data Discovery and Querying. Beacon v2, championed by Jordi Rambla and Lauren Fromont, has been one of the central elements for the discovery of human genetic and phenotypic data. The EGA-CRG contributed to the development of a model for cohort discovery inside the Beacon v2 model. The team also delivered a Discovery Portal was implemented to explore cohorts and individuals of synthetic data. It is a UI that gathers a network of Beacons, a service for query expansion, and a visualisation tool. Have a look at the Discovery Portal UI, gathering a network of Beacons. You will find entities such as the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC), BioData.pt and the European Genomic Data Infrastructure (GDI), among others. euCanSHare: facilitation of data access management This joint EU-Canada project aimed to build a European and Canadian FAIR platform for cardiovascular data sharing and analysis. The EGA’s tasks contributed to the development of the data management plan and data flows, main web-portal and interoperability protocols. An important part of the EuCanShare platform is the data access manager, a tool for the data owners to control the access to their sensitive datasets. We built a user-friendly interface for data access committees (data owners) to easily manage their data requests and access credentials. The data access portal facilitates the creation and internal organization of the data access committees as well as the linkage of data usage conditions to specific datasets. The interface includes filters for browsing requests and page to visualize the request history helping with the handling of data access requests. EUCANCan: toward a federation of clinical institutions in oncology The EUropean-CAnadian CANcer Network worked towards building a federated network to advance personalized medicine in oncology, by promoting the standard analysis, management and sharing of harmonized genomic and phenotypic data. The EGA led tasks on defining data flows and preparing an adapted infrastructure for long-term data storage and sharing. One of the key contributions was the conception of the EGA communities, offering standard and interoperable solutions for data discovery, processing, and sharing to projects and institutions that would like to manage and share data in the context of the EGA ecosystem. What's Next? The participation in projects such as CINECA, EUCANCan, and euCanSHare provide us with experience for future projects. We are happy to enhance data sharing and reuse, vital for advancing clinical and genomic research. The Discovery Portal is a wonderful proof of concept for the Beacon network. Next, we will finalise both the network and the user interface, and make sure it can be applied to more clinically-centred settings like hospitals. Most data hosted at the EGA are about cancer research. Currently, we contribute to building tools and infrastructure to empower oncology research in several European projects such as EUCAIM, EUCANIMAGE and EOSC4Cancer. We also do not lose sight of initiatives in the field such as the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) with the project ARGO, whose data model was adopted in EUCanCan.

  Blog cineca-eucancan-and-eucanshare-were-concluded-in-june

• The African American Breast Cancer Epidemiology and Risk (AMBER) Consortium Study

  The AMBER Consortium Study was formed to pool interview data, questionnaire data, and biological samples from epidemiological studies of breast cancer in African-American women to discover the potential causes of early-onset and aggressive breast cancer in African-American women. AMBER is funded through a Program Project grant from the National Cancer Institute. Genetic data submitted to dbGaP come from participants in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, Women&#39;s Circle of Health Study, and Black Women&#39;s Health Study. The P01 consists of four scientific projects; the aims include follow-up on previous GWAS findings for breast cancer susceptibility in AA women as well as investigation of SNPs in candidate genes in biologically plausible pathways. These SNPs were genotyped using DNA from 3130 African-American women with breast cancer and 3700 controls. Descriptions of the original studies that provided the data and samples for this collaborative study are given below. The Carolina Breast Cancer Study (CBCS): a North Carolina population-based case-control study of breast cancer, conducted in three phases. The current study phase, phase 3 (years 2008-2014), includes women residents in 44 counties. CBCS phases 1 and 2 were conducted in 24 counties. Breast cancer cases are identified using Rapid Case Ascertainment in cooperation with the NC Central Cancer Registry. Controls were identified for phases 1 and 2 only (1993-1996 and 1996-2001), using Division of Motor Vehicles lists for women under age 65 and Health Care Financing Administration lists for women 65 and older. Randomized recruitment was used to oversample AA women and women under age 50. In-depth interviews are conducted by study nurses in participants&#39; homes to obtain information on potential risk factors for breast cancer. DNA samples have been obtained from most participants. Overall response rates for Phases 1 and 2 were 74% for AA cases and 54% for AA controls. Phase 3, conducted in 44 counties from 2008-2014, includes cases only. The response rate for AA cases in Phase 3 was 70.5%. The Women&#39;s Circle of Health Study (WCHS): a multi-site case-control study in New York City (NYC) and New Jersey (NJ) aimed at evaluating risk factors for early and aggressive breast cancer in women of AA and EA ancestry. Recruitment in NYC took place between January 2002 and December 2008 and involved hospital-based ascertainment of cases, while controls were identified through random digit dialing (RDD). Recruitment at the NJ site started in March 2006 and is ongoing. Phase I of the study ended in April 2012 and covered seven counties in NJ. WCHS2 includes two additional counties. Cases in NJ were identified from 2006 to 2012 by the NJ State Cancer Registry using rapid case ascertainment. Controls were initially recruited though RDD (2006 to 2010) and later through community-based efforts (2009-2012). In-person interviews ascertained data on established and suspected risk factors for breast cancer. DNA samples were obtained. Among eligible AA women, 75% in NY and 54% in NJ completed an interview and provided a biologic specimen. Black Women&#39;s Health Study (BWHS): an ongoing prospective cohort study of health and illness among U.S. black women, with a focus on cancer. The study began in 1995 when 59,000 AA women 21-69 years of age from across the United States completed a 14-page postal health questionnaire. The median age at entry was 38, and participants were residents of 17 states in mainland U.S.: Northeast, 28%; South, 30%; Midwest, 23%; West, 19%. The baseline questionnaire elicited information on a wide range of variables, including demographic factors, use of medical care, family history of breast cancer, reproductive and medical history, cigarette and alcohol use, weight, height, waist and hip circumference, medication use, diet, and exercise. Biennial follow-up questionnaires ascertain new cases of breast cancer and other illnesses and update covariate information. Medical record and cancer registry data are sought for all participants who report a diagnosis of breast cancer. As of 2014, approximately 80% of the baseline cohort have completed follow-up. DNA samples were obtained from about 50% of participants. BWHS data for the AMBER consortium were prepared as a nested case-control study, with controls frequency-matched to cases on year of birth, geographic region, and most recent questionnaire completed prior to the end of the at-risk period.

  Study phs000669

• 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 Thomas Keane 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 (&#8805; 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&#39; 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&#39;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

• The Genetic Architecture of Smoking and Smoking Cessation

  This study includes samples from two projects: Collaborative Genetic Study of Nicotine Dependence (COGEND; PI: Laura Bierut) and University of Wisconsin Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Center (UW-TTURC; PI: Timothy Baker). Data are available for an additional 1420 COGEND subjects through the Study of Addiction: Genetics and Environment (SAGE), dbGaP study accession phs000092. The majority of these subjects are independent from the current study, but there is a small amount of overlap between the two samples (n=29 subjects) for quality control purposes. It should be noted that the case definition in the SAGE study is DSM-IV alcohol dependence. The case definition in the current study is nicotine dependence by a current score of 4 or greater on the Fagerstr&#246;m Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND). The overall goal of this project is to identify and characterize genetic variants that contribute to the development of nicotine dependence, related smoking behaviors, and smoking cessation. The COGEND sample includes unrelated cases and controls for a genetic association study of nicotine dependence. Cases are defined by a commonly used definition of nicotine dependence, a current score of 4 or more (maximum score of 10) on the Fagerstr&#246;m Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND). Control status is defined as an individual who smoked at least 100 cigarettes during their lifetime, yet never became dependent (lifetime FTND=0). By selecting controls who smoked, those genetic effects that are specific to nicotine dependence can be examined. The UW-TTURC sample includes nicotine dependent smokers from three smoking cessation studies. Subjects had to smoke at least 10 cigarettes per day (confirmed smoking by an alveolar carbon monoxide (CO) level greater than 9) and report being motivated to quit smoking. Participants were excluded based on evidence of psychosis history, clinically significant depression symptoms, other severe mental illness, or contraindications to smoking cessation medications. COGEND: COGEND was initiated in 2001 as a three-part program project grant funded through the National Cancer Institute (NCI; PI: Laura Bierut). The three projects included a study of the familial transmission of nicotine dependence, a genetic study of nicotine dependence, and a study of the relationship of nicotine dependence with nicotine metabolism. The primary goal is to detect, localize, and characterize genes that predispose or protect an individual with respect to heavy tobacco consumption, nicotine dependence, and related phenotypes and to integrate these findings with the family transmission and nicotine metabolism findings. The primary design is a community based case-control family study. Nicotine dependent cases and non-dependent, smoking controls were identified and recruited from Detroit and St. Louis. In addition, one sibling for each case and control subject was recruited in a subset of the sample. More than 54,000 subjects aged 25-44 years were screened by telephone; more than 3,100 subjects were personally interviewed; and more than 2,900 subjects donated blood samples for genetic studies. UW-TTURC: The UW-TTURC was initiated in 2001 as a study of nicotine dependence and smoking cessation treatment. The second round of UW-TTURC was initiated in 2005 as a study of efficacy of smoking cessation and long term outcomes. Nicotine dependent smokers seeking cessation treatment were identified and recruited from Madison and Milwaukee, WI. Over 9,000 adult smokers were screened by telephone; 2,575 individuals were enrolled and randomized to treatment conditions that involved use of different smoking cessation medications. Participants from the UW-TTURC smoking cessation clinical trials had the option of participating in a genetic substudy, and approximately 2,000 donated blood samples for genetic studies. The goal of the genetic studies of smokers seeking cessation treatment is to detect, localize, and characterize genes that predispose or protect an individual with respect to heavy tobacco consumption, nicotine dependence, and related phenotypes including cessation, withdrawal, and relapse. Both studies (COGEND and UW-TTURC) include measures of basic socio-demographic variables, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, family income, and educational attainment. Information on nicotine dependence, as assessed by the Fagerstr&#246;m Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) is available for all subjects. In addition, participants also completed the Nicotine Dependence Syndrome Scale (NDSS; Shiffman et al., 2004) and the Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (WISDM-68; Piper et al, 2004). Coding for both individual variables and indices has been standardized across studies. All subjects were assessed in person by trained research assistants. This study is part of the Gene Environment Association Studies initiative (GENEVA, http://www.genevastudy.org) funded by the trans-NIH Genes, Environment, and Health Initiative (GEI). The overarching goal is to identify novel genetic factors that contribute to the genetic architecture of smoking through large-scale genome-wide association studies of two well-characterized cohorts. Genotyping was performed at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR). Data cleaning and harmonization were done at the GEI-funded GENEVA Coordinating Center at the University of Washington.

  Study phs000404

• All you need to know about our new DAC Portal v2

  An updated version to boost the management of DACs (Data Access Committees), policies, and data access requests. In September of 2023, we launched new services for all EGA users, including a DAC Portal. Since then, our team has been working to refine it and improve the user experience. The version 2 of our DAC Portal is now ready, with a range of new features aimed at streamlining your workflow and boosting productivity. If you are interested in learning more about the latest version of our DAC Portal, then you are in the right place! In this post, you will find information about the implemented features and more. The full documentation is available on our website. Moreover, we highly recommend exploring the DAC Portal through the Take the Tour. This said, let's get cracking! Customise your data access requests table This table offers the possibility to tailor information about the data access requests by making visible or hiding different columns regarding the Dataset Persistent Identifier, the Organisation or the requestor's name s, among others. You can choose which columns to see, depending on your needs and interests. Additionally, we have implemented two new features columns with two new functionalities, DAC Comment and Expiration Date. You can find more details in the following sections! In this table, all data access requests are displayed by default. With the latest version of the Portal, you can now apply filters, combine them, and save them for future use. Leave internal comments on pending requests and visible to all the DAC Members We understand that many Data Access Committees (DACs) cannot instantly approve or deny data access requests. Often, there's an intermediary phase where discussions and the signing of legal documents are necessary. To facilitate this process, we've introduced the DAC comment feature! When you navigate to the DAC column, you'll find two tabs: "User" and "DAC". Under "User", you'll see the message provided by the requester at the time of requesting access to the data. As a DAC member/admin, you can then add an internal comment in the "DAC" tab. These comments are visible only to DAC members/admins, ensuring confidentiality. Requesters won't have access to DAC comments. By adding a DAC comment to a pending request, we'll know that you've begun reviewing it. This allows you to filter pending requests without DAC comments to focus on genuinely new requests, and it prevents you from receiving email notifications about ongoing data requests. Set expiration dates for permissions and revoke them automatically The latest update to the DAC Portal introduces a new feature allowing you to set expiration dates for new access requests. For instance, if you anticipate approving a data access request but only wish to grant access for a limited time, you can now specify an expiration date for the granted permissions. Once this date is reached, the permissions will automatically be revoked. By default, permissions are granted indefinitely without an expiration date. However, if you ever need to revoke permissions, you can easily do so from the History page. Audit your metadata objects Managing and auditing your metadata objects will be easier from now on as the new DAC Portal enhances and facilitates your role as a Data Controller. This is possible thanks to the tables available in each of the primary tabs visible on the homepage: DACs, Policies and Datasets. Starting with DACs, this section allows to check the policies linked to a specific DAC. In Policies, you can obtain a list of the datasets connected to a particular policy. In the Dataset tab, it is possible to group datasets by either DAC or Policy, as well as the release status. Now you have the option of deprecating metadata objects that you don’t want to use anymore, or that were created by mistake. You will find the deprecate button on the EDIT page of the DAC, as well as for registered policies. You can find more information here. What's neat about this feature is that once a DAC or policy is deprecated, it becomes hidden within the DAC Portal. This ensures that you only see information that is consistently up to date! Define your preferences regarding email notifications For pending requests, you will be able to decide how often you want to get the notifications: daily, weekly or fortnightly. Remember, you will not receive email notifications for pending requests with a DAC comment! Furthermore, you have the flexibility to decide which notifications you wish to receive, such as invitations to join a new DAC or notifications regarding DAC acceptance by the Helpdesk, among other options. Check the User preference to see the complete list of available notification settings! What’s next: incoming DAC Portal API In addition to the new DAC Portal, we are excited to announce the release of the DAC API! This enables users to programmatically manage permissions. If you are interested in learning more about the technical specifications, you can consult the DAC API specification. This post was written by Aina Jené and Ana T. Alonso.

  Blog new-dac-portal-v2

• ELLIPSE Prostate Cancer Meta-Analysis and Genotyping

  The ELLIPSE Consortium is an international effort to discover risk loci for prostate cancer. It includes the meta-analysis of existing GWAS data as well as novel GWAS, exome, and iCOGS genotyping. The GWAS meta-analysis includes the following cases and controls from studies of European ancestry: UK GWAS stage 1 (Illumina Infinium HumanHap 550 Array: 1854 cases and 1894 controls), UK GWAS stage 2 (Illumina iSELECT: 3706 cases and 3884 controls), CAPS1 (Affymetrix GeneChip 500K: 474 cases and 482 controls), CAPS2 (Affymetrix GeneChip 5.0K: 1458 cases and 512 controls), BPC3 (Illumina Human610 Illumina: 2068 cases and 3011 controls), PEGASUS (HumanOmni2.5: 4600 cases and 2941 controls). The OMNI 2.5M genotyping was conducted for 977 prostate cancer cases from UKGPCS. The Exome SNP array genotyping was conducted for 4741 subjects from UKGPCS. The iCOGs genotyping was conducted for 10366 subjects which includes the Multiethnic Cohort (n=1648) and UKGPCS (n=8718). Below is a description of each study that contributed to the meta-analysis of men of European ancestry. Information about the studies that contributed to the multiethnic meta-analysis can be found on the associated study page and also in Conti et al (Nature Genetics, PMID:33398198).&nbsp;&nbsp; UK GWAS Stage 1 (UK1) and Stage 2 (UK2): The UK Genetic Prostate Cancer Study (UKGPCS) was first established in 1993 and is the largest prostate cancer study of its kind in the UK, involving nearly 189 hospitals. We are based at The Institute of Cancer Research in Sutton, Surrey, and collaborate with the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Our aim is to find genetic changes which are associated with prostate cancer risk. Our target is to recruit 26,000 gentlemen into the UKGPCS by 2017. Men are eligible to take part if they fit into at least one of the following groups: They have been diagnosed with prostate cancer at 60 years of age or under (up to their 61st birthday). They have been diagnosed with prostate cancer and a first, second or third degree relative where at least one of these men were diagnosed with prostate cancer at 65 years of age or under. They are affected and have 3 or more cases of prostate cancer on one side of their family. They are a prostate cancer patient at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. We have to date recruited around 16,000 men on whom we have germline DNA and clinical data at diagnosis. The UK GWAS is based on genotyping of 541,129 SNPs in 1,854 individuals with clinically detected (non-PSA-screened) prostate cancer (cases) and 1,894 controls. 43,671 SNPs showing strong evidence of association in stage 1 were followed up by genotyping a further 3,268 cases and 3,366 controls from UK and Melbourne in stage2. CAPS1 and CAPS2: The CAPS (Cancer of the Prostate in Sweden) study represents a large Swedish population-based cancer study, comprising 3,161 cases and 2,149 controls, recruited between 2001 and 2003. Biopsy confirmed prostate cancer cases were identified and recruited from four out of six regional cancer registries in Sweden, diagnosed between July 2001 and October 2003. Clinical data including TNM stage, Gleason grade and PSA levels at time for diagnosis were retrieved through record linkage to the National Prostate Cancer Registry. Control subjects, who were recruited concurrently with case subjects, were randomly selected from the Swedish Population Registry and matched according to the expected age distribution of cases (groups of 5-year intervals) and geographic region. Whole blood was collected from all individuals for extraction of genomic DNA. A GWAS was conducted in two parts. In the first phase (CAPS1) 498 cases and 502 controls were genotyped, in the second phase 1,483 cases and 519 controls were genotyped. Genotyping was performed using the GeneChip Human Mapping 500K (CAPS1) and 5.0K (CAPS2) Array Set from Affymetrix (Santa Clara, CA). The National Cancer Institute Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium, BPC3: BPC3 was a consortium of prospective cohort studies investigating genetic and gene-environmental risk factors for breast and prostate cancer. Each study selected cases and controls for this study as described below. The clinical criteria defining advanced prostate cancer (Gleason = 8 or stage C/D) were either obtained from medical records or cancer registries. The Gleason score source was either surgical specimens (radical prostatectomy or autopsy) or the diagnostic biopsy (needle biopsy or TURP). When multiple Gleason scores were available the surgical value was used. PLCO was removed from the analysis as the samples were included in the Pegasus GWAS described below. In total 2,473 advanced prostate cancer cases and 3,534 controls were included in the analysis following QC. ATBC, Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study: ATBC was a randomized, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial to investigate whether &#945;-tocopherol or &#223;-carotene supplementation reduced the incidence of lung or other cancers in male smokers. Between 1985 and 1988, 29,133 men ages 50 to 69 years were enrolled in the trial from Finland and randomized to supplementation (50 mg &#945;-tocopherol, 20mg &#223;-carotene, or both) or placebo. Men with a prior history of cancer, other than non-melanoma skin cancer or carcinoma in situ, were excluded from participating. Incident cancer cases are identified through linkage with the Finnish Cancer Registry, which has ~100% ascertainment of cancer cases nationwide. Cases included 249 men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (Gleason = 8 or stage C/D) from 1985 to 2003 with DNA available. Controls were 1,271 men selected previously for a GWAS of lung cancer in ATBC without a diagnosis of prostate cancer. CPSII, Cancer Prevention Study II: CPSII is a cohort study started in 1982 to investigate the relationship between dietary, lifestyle and other etiologic factors and cancer mortality. Approximately 1.2 million men and women enrolled in the study from 50 states in the U.S. In 1992, a subset of these participants (n= ~184,000) were enrolled in the CPSII Nutrition Cohort to examine the relationship between dietary and other exposures and cancer incidence. Blood samples were drawn from approximately 39,376 members of the Nutritional Cohort from 1998 to 2001, and buccal cells were collected from 69,467 members from 2001 to 2002. Cancer cases are identified by self-report through follow-up questionnaires followed by verification through medical records and/or linkage to state cancer registries as well as death certificates. A total of 660 advanced prostate cancer cases (Gleason = 8 or stage III/IV) with a source of DNA were identified for this study. Controls were 660 men matched on ethnicity, date of birth, sample collection date and DNA type. EPIC, European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition: EPIC is a prospective study designed to investigate both genetic and non-genetic risk factors for different forms of cancer. Study participants were almost all white Europeans. Approximately 500,000 individuals (150,000 men) in EPIC were recruited between 1992 and 2000, from 23 centers in 10 European countries. Overall approximately 400,000 subjects also provided a blood sample at recruitment. The methods of recruitment and details of the study design are described in detail elsewhere. In brief, study participants completed an extensive questionnaire on both dietary and nondietary data at recruitment. The present study includes subjects from advanced prostate cancer cases (Gleason = 8 or stage III/IV) matched to controls based on study center, length of follow-up, age at enrollment (&#177; 6 months), fasting and time of day of blood collection (&#177; 1 hour). The advanced prostate cancer subjects were from 8 of the 10 participating countries: Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (UK). France and Norway were not included in the current study because these cohorts only included female subjects. All participants gave written consent for the research and approval for the study was obtained from the ethical review board from all local institutions in the regions where participants had been recruited for the EPIC study. HPFS, Health Professionals Follow-up Study: HPFS began in 1986 and is an ongoing prospective cohort study of 51,529 United States male dentists, optometrists, osteopaths, podiatrists, pharmacists, and veterinarians 40 to 75 years of age. The baseline questionnaire provided information on age, marital status, height and weight, ancestry, medications, smoking history, disease history, physical activity, and diet. At baseline the cohort was 97% white, 2% Asian American, and 1% African American. The median follow-up through 2005 was 10.5 years (range 2-19 years). Self-reported prostate cancer diagnoses were confirmed by obtaining medical and/or pathology records. Prostate cancer deaths are either reported by family members in response to follow-up questionnaires, discovered by the postal system, or the National Death Index. Questionnaires are sent every two years to surviving men to update exposure and medical history. In 1993 and 1994, a blood specimen was collected from 18,018 men without a prior diagnosis of cancer. Prostate cancer cases are matched to controls on birth year (+/-1) and ethnicity. Controls are selected from those who are cancer-free at the time of the case&#8217;s diagnosis, and had a prostate-specific antigen test after the date of blood draw.&nbsp;&nbsp; MEC, Multiethnic Cohort: The Multiethnic Cohort Study is a population-based prospective cohort study that was initiated between 1993 and 1996 and includes subjects from various ethnic groups - African Americans and Latinos primarily from Californian (great Los Angeles area) and Native Hawaiians, Japanese-Americans, and European Americans primarily from Hawaii. State drivers&#8217; license files were the primary sources used to identify study subjects in Hawaii and California. Additionally, in Hawaii, state voter&#8217;s registration files were used, and, in California, Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) files were used to identify additional African American men. All participants (n=215,251) returned a 26-page self-administered baseline questionnaire that obtained general demographic, medical and risk factor information. In the cohort, incident cancer cases are identified annually through cohort linkage to population-based cancer Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries in Hawaii and Los Angeles County as well as to the California State cancer registry. Information on stage and grade of disease are also obtained through the SEER registries. Blood sample collection in the MEC began in 1994 and targeted incident prostate cancer cases and a random sample of study participants to serve as controls for genetic analyses. PHS, Physicians Health Study:PHS was a randomized trial of aspirin and &#223; carotene for cardiovascular disease and cancer among 22,071 U.S. male physicians ages 40-84 years at randomization; none had a cancer diagnosis at baseline. The original trial ended, but the men are followed. From 1982 to 1984, blood samples were collected from 14,916 physicians before randomization. Participants are sent yearly questionnaires to ascertain endpoints. Whenever a physician reports cancer, we request permission to obtain the medical records, and cancers are confirmed by pathology report. We obtain death certificates and pertinent medical records for all deaths. Follow-up for nonfatal outcomes in PHS is over 97% complete, and for mortality, over 99%. PLCO, Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial:PLCO is a multicenter, randomized trial to evaluate screening methods for the early detection of prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer. Between 1993 and 2001, over 150,000 men and women ages 55-74 years were recruited from ten centers in the United States (Birmingham, AL; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI; Honolulu, HI; Marshfield, WI; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; Salt Lake City, UT; St. Louis, MO; and Washington, D.C.). Men randomized to the screening arm underwent prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) annually for six years and digital rectal exam annually for four years. Blood specimens were collected from participants randomized to the screening arm of the trial, and buccal cell specimens were obtained from participants randomized to the control arm. Cases included 754 men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (Gleason = 8 or stage III/IV) from either arm of the trial. Of these cases, 317 were genotyped previously as part of Cancer Genetic Markers of Susceptibility (CGEMS), a GWAS for prostate cancer. Controls included 1,491 men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer from the screening arm of the PLCO trial. All subjects provided informed consent to participate in genetic etiology studies of cancer and other traits. This study was approved by the institutional review boards at the ten centers and the National Cancer Institute. PLCO was removed from the meta-analysis of the BPC3 studies as a consequence of PEGASUS below. PEGASUS, Prostate cancer Genome-wide Association Study of Uncommon Susceptibility loci: Pegasus is a genome-wide association nested within the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. PLCO is a multicenter, randomized trial to evaluate screening methods for the early detection of prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer. Between 1993 and 2001, over 150,000 men and women ages 55-74 years were recruited from ten centers in the United States (Birmingham, AL; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI; Honolulu, HI; Marshfield, WI; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; Salt Lake City, UT; St. Louis, MO; and Washington, D.C.). Men randomized to the screening arm underwent prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen annually for six years and digital rectal exam annually for four years. Blood specimens were collected from participants randomized to the screening arm of the trial, and buccal cell specimens were obtained from participants randomized to the control arm. Cases included 4,598 men of European ancestry diagnosed with prostate cancer from either arm of the trial and controls included 2,941 men of European ancestry without a diagnosis of cancer from the screening arm, matched on age and year of randomization. All subjects provided informed consent, and the study approved by the institutional review board at the National Cancer Institute. Funding:This work was supported by the GAME-ON U19 initiative for prostate cancer (ELLIPSE): U19 CA148537. The BPC3 was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (cooperative agreements U01-CA98233, U01-CA98710, U01-CA98216, and U01-CA98758, and Intramural Research Program of NIH/National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics). The ATBC study and PEGASUS was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH and the National Cancer Institute. Additionally, this research was supported by U.S. Public Health Service contracts N01-CN-45165, N01-RC-45035, N01-RC-37004 and HHSN261201000006C from the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services. CAPS: The Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden was supported by the Cancer Risk Prediction Center (CRisP; www.crispcenter.org), a Linneus Centre (Contract ID 70867902) financed by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council (grant: K2010-70X-20430-04-3), the Swedish Cancer Foundation (grant: 09-0677), the Hedlund Foundation, the S&#246;derberg Foundation, the Enqvist Foundation, ALF funds from the Stockholm County Council. Stiftelsen Johanna Hagstrand och Sigfrid Linn&#233;r&#8217;s Minne, Karlsson&#8217;s Fund for urological and surgical research. We thank and acknowledge all of the participants in the Stockholm-1 study. We thank Carin Cavalli-Bj&#246;rkman and Ami R&#246;nnberg Karlsson for their dedicated work in the collection of data. Michael Broms is acknowledged for his skillful work with the databases. KI Biobank is acknowledged for handling the samples and for DNA extraction. Hans Wallinder at Aleris Medilab and Sven Gustafsson at Karolinska University Laboratory are thanked for their good cooperation in providing historical laboratory results. UKGPCS would like to acknowledge the NCRN nurses and Consultants for their work in the UKGPCS study. We thank all the patients who took part in this study. This work was supported by Cancer Research UK (grants: C5047/A7357, C1287/A10118, C1287/A5260, C5047/A3354, C5047/A10692, C16913/A6135 and C16913/A6835). We would also like to thank the following for funding support: Prostate Research Campaign UK (now Prostate Cancer UK), The Institute of Cancer Research and The Everyman Campaign, The National Cancer Research Network UK, The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) UK. We are grateful for support of NIHR funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. The MEC was supported by NIH grants CA63464, CA54281 and CA098758.&nbsp;

  Study phs001120

• All you need to know about our new DAC Portal

  With the DAC Portal, it is possible to streamline the process of managing access to sensitive data, ensuring that researchers have the necessary resources to advance scientific discovery while maintaining the highest standards of data protection and privacy. We know that, as a new tool, its first use can be complex. For this reason, in this article we will try to show all the elements of interest. Enjoy! Credentials: who needs to create a new user to access the DAC Portal and who doesn't? Only new users (since September the 12th) need to create an EGA account to access the DAC Portal. The EGA team went one step ahead by creating EGA accounts for former DAC members to login to the DAC Portal. These accounts are linked to the personal email used in the DAC structure: To check the linked email, DAC members can paste the DAC ID right after this link: https://metadata.ega-archive.org/dacs/ (e.g. https://metadata.ega-archive.org/dacs/EGAC00001002543) In case of password oblivion, it is possible to set a new one. All the process is channelled through the personal email. Some DAC members may be interested in updating the DAC email. This action can be done contacting our Helpdesk team. For the correct functioning of the DAC Portal, users must add the missing information of the DAC Profile. For a deeper dive, check out our documentation. The first step: knowing your workspace on the Portal Once logged in to the platform using the EGA User credentials, note the sections available: DACs and Policies. In the first one it is possible to check all user's registered DACs by default. It provides a comprehensive overview of each DAC, including its EGA accessions (EGAC), title, status, and the number of data access requests associated with each DAC. Whereas the Policies section is where users can manage and view all their registered policies, along with their associated EGA accessions, links, and titles. A drop-down menu is available with shortcuts to the most useful pages in the top right corner. It is possible to check DACs and policies, as well as creating new ones. In this menu, users can also contact the Helpdesk team using the “Need Help?” section to make inquiries about DACs and policies. Comprehending the DACs list & making the most of all the features Colours are crucial in the DAC's section as they will indicate the user role and the status in every committee, namely: Yellow: you are the administrator of the DAC and have full control to add other contacts, modify the content, and manage data access requests. Orange: you are a member of the DAC and have the authority to manage data access requests but cannot make any changes to the content. Blue: you have been invited to join the DAC and need to either accept or decline the invitation. Grey: the DAC is currently pending validation by the EGA Helpdesk team. Red: the DAC has been declined by the EGA Helpdesk team. Discover more information on how to view the message from Helpdesk containing the declination reason or how to validate or reject a DAC invitation by taking the tour of the DAC Portal. How to create, register and edit a DAC Creating a DAC is an easy process that only requires users to complete the necessary information. After that, the EGA Helpdesk team will review the proposal and validate the proposal. Once the DAC is validated it is possible for authorised users with admin role to edit it at any time, ensuring that all information and contacts associated with the committee is accurate and up to date. Membership management is controlled by searching for the EGA user looking for their username, email, or organisation. Please, note that for a person's details to appear in this search engine, they must have registered as a EGA user. Data Access Committee administrators manage two types of permissions that apply to contacts: Main contact and Role. Both can be modified at any time: Main contact refers to the primary person we firstly contact for any inquiry about the DAC (please, note that we can contact all DAC members, and this refers to the person we will contact first). Role defines the actions that can be taken by each contact. There are two possible status, admin and member, details of which can be found in the Take the Tour. Keep in mind that, to save the modifications, it is always necessary to click on “Update”. Moreover, it is also possible to delete any contact in a DAC whenever it is needed. The data request process: how to manage access requests The data request process is now channelled through the EGA website. Once a user sends a request access, the petition will go directly to the DAC Portal profile of the DAC members liked to the requested dataset. Whenever a request is received, a sand clock symbol will be displayed next to the DAC responsible for the dataset involved. By clicking on the DAC, it is possible to discover more information about requester(s). In this section, DAC Portal users will also be able to modify the display of the data access requests. It is possible to group requests by dataset accession or username, depending on the user preferences. Additionally, it is possible to isolate specific requests by user or dataset. To accept a request, users must slide the button to the right. Once the button turns green, it signifies that the request is accepted; the requester will be granted access to the requested dataset. To make lives easier, we have implemented a “Select all” button to easily accept or revoke multiple requests at once. To decline requests, it is necessary to slide the button to the left. A red button means the requester will not be granted access to the dataset. The DAC Portal will always ask to submit the reason why the data access was denied. Please, note that any decision, grant or denial, must be confirmed clicking the "Apply" button. This will update the status of the request and notify the requester accordingly. Taking control of the activity in the DAC Portal: checking the requests history The History button is a useful feature that allows users to access a list of all the requests that have been granted. This is especially useful for auditing purposes, as it enables to keep track of who has been granted access to the data and when. To facilitate control for those users with several requests we have included a filtering option. It allows to filter requests by user, mail, dataset, EGA ID, and date (these are combinable to boost the search). Don't forget about policies: creation, management, and update Similarly to the DACs section, in the Policies one users can manage and view all their registered policies. By clicking on any policy, it is possible to view its details as well as making any necessary updates or modifications. The sheets symbol and its adjacent number indicate the quantity of objects using a policy. By clicking in the location symbol users will go directly to the DAC page on the DAC Portal to see more information about that DAC. DAC Portal users can create new policies. The first step requires to link the policy to a registered DAC. After defining the title, users can either add a link to an external URL containing terms & conditions or write the policy content directly on the DAC Portal. Keep in mind that both options can be included. Data Use Ontology (DUO) codes can be added to new policies. These codes are used to specify the permitted and prohibited uses of the data. Please, note that some of them require a modifier to provide additional specificity. Find out more by checking out this specific content on the DAC Portal Tour. Policies can be modified at any given time by clicking on one registered policy, which will display the current information.

  Blog new-dac-portal