1274 results for "credit fc prix Visitez le site Buyfc26coins.com Service client exceptionnel et prix imbattables pour les FC 26 coins.9uPe"

in 21.90 milliseconds.

• Neurodevelopmental Genomics: Trajectories of Complex Phenotypes

  This study is a collaboration between the Center for Applied Genomics (CAG) at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the Brain Behavior Laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn). The cohort consists of youths aged 8-21 years who consulted the CHOP network and volunteered to participate in genomic studies of complex pediatric disorders. All participants underwent clinical assessment, including a neuropsychiatric structured interview and review of electronic medical records. They were also administered a neuroscience based computerized neurocognitive battery (CNB) and a subsample underwent neuroimaging. These are described separately below. Clinical Testing: GOASSESS, a computerized, structured screener developed from a modified version of the Kiddie-Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS, Kaufman et al. 1997, PMID: 9204677). Components of the interview include a timeline of life events, demographics and medical history, Global Assessment of Functioning, and Interviewer Observations. A psychopathology symptom and criterion-related assessment of mood disorders (depression, mania/hypomania), anxiety disorders (overanxious/generalized-, separation-, social-anxiety, specific phobia, panic disorder, agoraphobia, obsessive compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder), behavioral disorders (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder), psychosis spectrum (psychosis and prodromal symptoms), eating disorders, suicidal thinking and behavior, and treatment history. This is also based on K-SADS. An abbreviated Family Interview for Genetics Studies (FIGS) to assess major domains of psychopathology in the proband's first-degree relatives. Computerized Neurocognitive Battery: The CNB, developed for large-scale studies, yields measures of accuracy and speed for domains of executive-control functions (abstraction, attention, working memory), episodic memory (verbal, facial, spatial), complex cognitive processing (language reasoning, nonverbal reasoning, spatial processing), social cognition (emotion identification, emotion intensity differentiation, age differentiation) and sensorimotor and motor speed. The following neurobehavioral domains were assessed: Penn Conditional Exclusion Test is a measure of abstraction and concept formation. Participants decide which of 4 objects does not belong with the other 3, based on one of three sorting principles, which change. Feedback is used. Attention: The Penn Continuous Performance Test. Participants respond to a set of 7-segment displays whenever they form a digit or letter. Working Memory: The Letter N-back Test displays sequences of uppercase letters with a stimulus duration of 500 ms (ISI 2,500 ms.) In the 0-back condition, participants respond to a single target (i.e., X). In the 1-back condition they respond if the letter is identical to that preceding it. In the 2-back condition, they respond if the letter is identical to that presented two trials back. Verbal Memory: The Penn Word Memory Test presents 20 target words that are then mixed with 20 distracters equated for frequency, length, concreteness and low imageability. A 20 min delayed recall procedure is also administered. Face Memory: The Penn Face Memory Test presents 20 digitized faces that are then mixed with 20 distracters equated for age, gender and ethnicity. The procedure is repeated at 20 min delay. Spatial Memory: The Visual Object Learning Test uses Euclidean shapes as stimuli with the same paradigm as the word and face. Language and Analogical Reasoning: The Penn Verbal Reasoning consists of verbal analogy problems. Spatial Processing: Penn Line Orientation Test presents two lines at an angle, and participants click on a button that makes one line rotate until it has the same angle as the other. Emotion Processing: Facial displays of 4 emotions (Happy, Sad, Anger, Fear) and Neutral faces, 8 each, are presented and the subject identifies the emotion in a multiple-choice format. The facial stimuli are balanced for gender, age, and ethnicity. Sensory-motor Processing Speed: The task requires moving the mouse and clicking on a green square that disappears after the click. The square gets increasingly small and appears in unpredictable locations. Neuroimaging Protocol: Studies were performed at Penn using a Siemens Trio (Erlangen, Germany) 3T scanner equipped with 40mT/m gradients and 200 mT/m/s slew-rates. RF transmission utilized a quadrature body-coil, and reception a 12-channel head coil optimized for parallel imaging. Total image acquisition time was about 45 min. Structural Imaging: The T1-weighted protocol utilized a 3D, inversion-recovery, and magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition gradient echo. Relevant imaging procedures include: Structural magnetic imaging Diffusion tensor imaging ASL perfusion BOLD fMRI Neuroimaging tasks: Fractal N-Back Task of Spatial Working Memory Face Emotion Identification Task Neuroimages: The current data release includes over 9700 MRI images that may be downloaded through Authorized Access.

  Study phs000607

• eMERGE Network Phase III Clinical Sequencing: eMERGEseq Panel

  The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network is a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-organized and funded consortium of U.S. medical research institutions. The primary goal of the eMERGE Network is to develop, disseminate, and apply approaches to research that combine biorepositories with electronic medical record (EMR) systems for genomic discovery and genomic medicine implementation research. eMERGE was announced in September 2007 and began its third phase in September 2015. eMERGE III consists of nine study sites, two central sequencing and genotyping facilities, and a coordinating center. eMERGE Phase III aims to: 1) sequence and assess the phenotypic implication of rare variants in a custom designed eMERGEseq panel consisting of 109 genes (including 56 ACMG actionable finding list genes and the top 6 genes from each site relevant to their specific aims), as well as approximately 1400 SNPs; 2) assess the phenotypic implications of these variants by developing, validating and implementing new phenotype algorithms, 3) integrate genetic variants into EMRs to inform clinical care; and 4) create community resources. Included in this study are: ~24,000 eMERGE participants from 10 eMERGE III study sites. Corresponding demographics, body mass index measurements. Top PheWAS codes generated from a collated list of ICD codes from all study sites. Study sites and participants include: Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) is a not-for-profit hospital and research center pioneering breakthrough treatments, providing outstanding family-centered patient care and training healthcare professionals for the future, and dedicated to improving health and welfare of children and to the shared purpose of discovery and practical application of new genomic information to the ordinary care of children. We bring a comprehensive electronic health record (EPIC), a deidentified i2b2 data warehouse of 680K patient records, a biobank with >261,000 consents that allow return of results to >84,000 patients and guardians who have provided DNA samples, and hundreds of faculty and senior staff who make genomics or informatics an active focus of their research. CCHMC will help the eMERGE III Steering Committee identify genes for the eMERGE III targeted sequencing panel, provide 3,000 DNA samples from CCHMC patients to be sequenced, review targeted gene panels from clinical care at CCHMC for somatic mosaicism and reinterpretation, and further develop and disseminate a software workflow suite for sequence analysis. We will also extend our work generating phenotype algorithms using heuristic and machine learning methods to many new childhood diseases. We will develop tools to evaluate adolescent return of results preferences, examine the ethical and legal obligations and potential to reanalyze results, and develop clinical decision support for phenotyping, test ordering, and returning sequencing results. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP): The Center for Applied Genomics (CAG) is a specialized Center of Emphasis at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), and one of the world's largest genetics research programs, with to state-of-the-art high-throughput sequencing and genotyping technology. Our primary goal is to translate basic research findings to medical innovations. We aim to develop new and better ways to diagnose and treat children affected by rare and complex medical disorders, including asthma, autism, epilepsy, pediatric cancer, learning disabilities, and a range of rare diseases. Ultimately, our objective is to generate new diagnostic tests and to guide physicians to the most appropriate therapies. Participants were recruited from the CAG biorepository (n>450,000), specifically from >100,000 CHOP pediatric patients and family members, which is enriched for rare-diseases (n>12,000). Center for Applied Genomics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia We gratefully thank all the children and their families who enrolled in this study, and all individuals who donated blood samples for research purposes. Genotyping for this project was performed at the Center for Applied Genomics and supported by an Institutional Development Award from The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Sequencing was supported by the National Institutes of Health through an award from the National Human Genome Research Institute's Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) program (U01HG008684). Columbia University: The goal of the Columbia eMERGE III project is to develop methods for integrating genomic data in EHRs and to study the impact of such genomic informatics interventions on the health of a diverse, underserved urban adult English- and Spanish-speaking patient population in Northern Manhattan served by Columbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital system. The study group is 2500 patients recruited from diverse clinics and community outreach centers of self-reported White (~61%), Asian (~11%), African-American (~11%), American Indian/Alaska Native (<1%) racial and Hispanic (~33%) ethnic backgrounds. There are two subgroups in the study cohort - a retrospective group (N=1052) that includes patients from oncology and nephrology clinics, and a prospective one (N=1448) that includes healthy individuals as well as participants with diverse medical conditions. Confirmed pathogenic variants in 70 selected genes will be returned to participants and their healthcare providers through the EHR integration. Participants are able to choose the results they receive and will have the freedom to meet with a genetic counselor and a geneticist to review results. The impact of genetic testing on clinical care is determined by periodic monitoring of EHRs. Geisinger: Samples and phenotype data in this study were provided by the Geisinger MyCode® Community Health Initiative. Participants are recruited across the Geisinger System via online consents or in-person consents at a hospital or clinic visit. Enrollment is ongoing with over 100,000 individuals currently consented. Partners Healthcare (Harvard University): The Partners HealthCare Biobank is a large research program designed to help researchers understand how people's health is affected by their genes, lifestyle, and environment. This large research data and sample repository provides access to high-quality, consented blood samples to help foster research, advance our understanding of the causes of common diseases, and advance the practice of medicine. For the Partners research community (Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital), the Biobank provides: Banked samples (plasma, serum, and DNA) collected from consented patients Blood samples that were discarded after clinical testing in the Crimson Cores maintained in the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital Pathology Departments Sample handling and preparation services Link to the biobank data to the Partners Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR) a research instance of our electronic clinical chart Data access through our research portal. To date, over 70,000 Partners patients have given their consent to enroll, give a blood sample, receive research results and agreed to be re-contacted for additional research studies. The Biobank has enabled Partners investigators to compete for nationally recognized grants in personalized medicine such as a clinical electronic Medical Records and Genomics network (eMERGE) site and the national All of US program. The Biobank currently supports over 120 Partners investigators and over 130 million dollars in NIH research. Kaiser Permanente Washington/ (KPWA) / University of Washington (UW): KPWA participants were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Northwest Institute of Genetic Medicine (NWIGM) biorepository, and provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N=2,500.) NWIGM is based at the University of Washington and co-managed by the University of Washington and KPWA. The purpose of the NWIGM biorepository is to build infrastructure and resources to carry out a broad range of future genetic research. KPWA members enrolled in the biorepository are asked to provide informed consent to providing a DNA sample for storage in the NWIGM biorepository. The consent is purposefully broad to serve the dual purpose of reducing the burden on researchers who wish to use this biorepository and the IRB committees who will be responsible for reviewing these requests in the future. Participants were eligible if aged 50 - 65 years old at the time of their enrollment into the NWIGM repository, living, enrolled in KPWA's integrated group practice, and had completed an online Health Risk Appraisal. The selection algorithm was based on several data sources from the EHR at KPWA. 1) Demographics - participants with self-reported race as Asian ancestry were prioritized and selected to enrich for non-European ancestry. The KPWA eMERGE cohort includes N=1,245 members of Asian ancestry. 2) Participants were also selected for a history of colorectal cancer (N=1,255), in order to allow us to enrich germline pathogenic variants. Mayo Clinic: The Return of Actionable Variants Empirical (RAVE) Study was approved by the Mayo Clinic IRB. We recruited 2537 participants from Mayo Clinic biobanks in Rochester, MN, who had hypercholesterolemia or colon polyps, thereby enriching for Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and monogenic causes of colorectal cancer (CRC). Additional eligibility criteria were: 1) residents of Southeast MN who were alive and aged 18-70 years; 2) LDL-C level >155 or >120 mg/dl while on lipid-lowering therapy; 3) no known cause of secondary hyperlipidemia; and 4) no cognitive impairment or dementia that would compromise their ability to give written informed consent. Based on these criteria, we identified 5270 eligible patients and obtained informed consent from 3030 participants. Recruitment was conducted in waves and utilized mailed recruitment packets consisting of a study brochure, a written informed consent form, a baseline psychosocial questionnaire, and a return postage-paid envelope. DNA of 2537 participants was sent for CLIA-certified targeted sequencing of 109 genes including genes associated with FH and CRC. Targeted sequencing and genotyping was performed in a Central Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA)-certified laboratory. Northwestern University: Samples and data used in this study were obtained from patients from Northwestern Medicine, an integrated healthcare system, formed through a partnership of Northwestern Memorial HealthCare and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. Participants include a retrospective cohort from the Northwestern Pharmacogenomics Study, funded through the eMERGE II project, NHGRI (3U01HG006388-02S1) and a prospective cohort from the Genetic Testing and Your Health Study, funded through the eMERGE III project, NHGRI (U01HG008673). Patients were eligible to participate if they were18 years or older and see a physician at Northwestern Medicine. Patients consented to genetic testing and to allow their results to be placed in their electronic medical record. Vanderbilt University Medical Center: Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) participants were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Vanderbilt Genome-Electronic Records (VGER) project. Patients were provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N=2,700). Participants were eligible if aged 21 or over, had a healthcare provider at VUMC, and visited the provider at least 3 times in the past 3 years. Meharry Medical College: Inclusion of ethnic groups in genomic research is critical to identify possible reasons for health disparities. African-Americans are being enrolled in various outpatient clinics of Nashville General Hospital at Meharry, an inner city hospital primary serving a poorer patient group. A total of 500 African Americans with four cancer types demonstrating health disparities in this population - prostate, colon, breast, lung are identified and approached by clinical research coordinators. The purpose of the study is to determine if any genetic information can be identified from these patients who have or are at high risk of one of these disparate cancers. All participants provide written informed consent and HIPAA authorization to provide blood samples for broad research use and permission to access data in their hospital electronic medical record for research now and in the future. An extensive demographic profile is obtained and entered into a REDCap database. Blood samples are obtained for a panel of alleles from extracted DNA at Baylor. In addition, de-identified coded samples are processed and stored in a central biorepository for further DNA, RNA and proteomic analyses. The survey and phlebotomy are performed at the time of the initial contact and agreement to participate. Nearly all patients approached willingly agree to participate for potential benefit to themselves, family members, or humankind. Little concern is voiced of providing samples for genetic analysis. Study investigators will share results with the participants and providers if testing does not indicate high risk. Results indicating increased risk or actionable alleles for the patient and/or family will be returned by a genetic counselor. Monitoring of the patients' health in this cohort will continue to be followed in the EMR to identify any future associations that might explain health disparities in African Americans. Proposals will be reviewed from investigators to study the genetic or proteomic samples as well as the clinical and demographic information in the repository. Please note that this version of the dataset has a handful of mismatches between genotyped and provided sex. Data with the following IDs should be removed prior to analysis: 420252874213744142412243424569384245694642672223

  Study phs001616

• 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

• Sleep Heart Health Study (SHHS-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.Related StudiesParent cohort phenotype data can be accessed through ARIC-BioLINCC, Framingham-BioLINCC, and CHS-BioLINCC. Objectives To determine the cardiovascular and other consequences of sleep-disordered breathing and to test whether sleep-disordered breathing is associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, all-cause mortality and hypertension by examining subjects from well-characterized and established epidemiologic cohorts. Background Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSA) is a potentially debilitating condition characterized by repetitive episodes of apnea while asleep, nocturnal oxygen desaturation, excessive daytime sleepiness, and loud disruptive snoring. Epidemiologic data from middle-aged adults indicate that OSA is common, with prevalence rates of 4% in men and 2% in women. Prior studies implicated OSA as a risk factor for the development of hypertension, ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, stroke and consequently premature death. Questions arose as to whether an increased propensity for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases was limited to only those with frank OSA or whether more subtle forms of sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) would also confer elevated risk. Further evidence was also needed to clarify whether, SDB, including OSA, is an independent risk factor for the development of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease. Known cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease risk factors such as obesity and smoking are commonly present in those with SDB; therefore, apparent associations between SDB and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases may have resulted from the effects of these concomitant risk factors. Moreover, there was no understanding as to whether such factors as race, age, gender, and prevalent cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease might interact with SDB to alter future cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease risk. Mechanisms underlying any propensity to develop cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease with SDB had not been firmly established (Quan, et al., 1997, PMID: 9493915). Participants Participants in SHHS were recruited from nine existing NHLBI epidemiological studies in which data on cardiovascular risk factors had been collected previously. The “parent” cohorts included: Two sites of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (ARIC) Three sites of the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) The Framingham Offspring Cohort The Strong Heart Study (SHS) sites in South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Arizona The New York Hypertension Cohorts The Tucson Epidemiologic Study of Airways Obstructive Diseases and the Health and Environment Study From these parent cohorts, a sample of participants who met the inclusion criteria (age 40 years or older; no history of treatment of sleep apnea; no tracheostomy; no current home oxygen therapy) was invited to participate in the baseline examination of the SHHS, which included an initial polysomnogram (SHHS-1). Several cohorts over-sampled snorers in order to increase the study-wide prevalence of sleep-disordered breathing. In all, 6441 individuals were enrolled between November 1, 1995 and January 31, 1998. During exam cycle 3 (January 2001-June 2003), a second polysomnogram (SHHS-2) was obtained in 3295 of the participants. Due to sovereignty issues, Strong Heart Study participants are not included in the shared SHHS data. Data from a total of 5839 participants (1920 ARIC, 1249 CHS, 997 Framingham Offspring and OMNI 1, and 1673 from other studies), consenting to share data are available. Design The Sleep Heart Health Study added in-home polysomnography to the data collected in each of the parent studies at a baseline SHHS exam and a follow-up approximately 4 years later. Using the Compumedics PS polysomnograph, sleep studies were obtained in an unattended setting, usually in the homes of the participants, by trained and certified technicians. The recording montage consisted of: C3/A2 and C4/A1 EEGs, sampled at 125 Hz right and left electrooculograms (EOGs), sampled at 50 Hz a bipolar submental electromyogram (EMG), sampled at 125 Hz thoracic and abdominal excursions (THOR and ABDO), recorded by inductive plethysmography bands and sampled at 10 Hz "airflow" detected by a nasal-oral thermocouple (Protec, Woodinville, WA), sampled at 10 Hz finger-tip pulse oximetry (Nonin, Minneapolis, MN) sampled at 1 Hz ECG from a bipolar lead, sampled at 125 Hz for most SHHS-1 studies and 250 Hz for SHHS-2 studies Heart rate (PR) derived from the ECG and sampled at 1 Hz body position (using a mercury gauge sensor) ambient light (on/off, by a light sensor secured to the recording garment)This montage provides data on the occurrence of sleep-disordered breathing, sleep stages, heart rate, oximetry and on arousals. Each participant in the parent studies was also asked to complete the Sleep Habits Questionnaire which covers usual sleep pattern, snoring, and sleepiness.

  Study phs003637

• Submission FAQ

  Submission FAQ Before Submission Is the EGA the right archive for my data? The most suitable archive for your data is dependent on the type of data you are wishing to submit and whether the data require public or controlled access. Public access is defined as complete and open access to all submitted data. On the contrary, controlled access, exerted by the EGA, requires formal applications to be made to access the submitted data files and metadata. EGA only accepts human-derived data subject to controlled access. If your submission contains other types of data, please choose the appropriate repository for it (see image below): ENA, EVA, ArrayExpress, BioSD and GWAS catalog.  Should your submission be subjected to controlled access? Data access conditions are normally defined in the original informed consent agreements signed by the participants involved in your study. All data submitted to the EGA is subject to controlled access. These consents prevent the derived data files, potentially identifiable, from being dispersed by open and public access. Controlled access data often refers to human data derived from medical research and consortium projects. If in doubt, consult the informed consent agreements that apply to your study The EGA enables you to hold a submission before publication. What data types can be submitted to the EGA? Data types accepted by the EGA can be split into three categories: Sequences: both in generic and platform-specific formats. Array-based: from raw signal files to processed matrices. Phenotypes: all possible phenotype formats are accepted. All manufacturer-specific raw data formats derived from major next generation sequencing platforms are accepted. Also generic sequence formats: flat reads in a FASTQ file, aligned sequences (BAM or CRAM files) as well as sequence variation files in VCF format. All array-based technologies are accepted, including raw data, intensity and analysis files, without any restriction on data formats accepted. We also accept and distribute phenotype data (associated to the samples) in almost any format: from an image to a README file. How long does a submission take? Submissions to EGA come in a variety of formats and sizes, thus it is difficult for us to exactly predict how long a submission will take. We, therefore, advise all of our submitters to allow as much time as possible to make a submission. Based on previous records, we anticipate that the submission process may take at least one month. The submitter’s familiarity with the procedures, possible technical issues that may arise during submission and the amount of data that is being submitted are the main factors that will affect the length of the submission process. However, each step of a regular submission should be considered when estimating the time it would take: Encryption of the files Upload of the files Metadata submission Archival of the files Release of the study and datasets to EGA webpage For example, the upload of the files depends on the submission size, while metadata submission mainly relies on each submitter’s expertise. Further, some steps (e.g. answering to inquiries) depend on the EGA Helpdesk team, which may take some days to be processed during busy times Is data deposited in the EGA secure? The EGA set-up consists of a secure computing facility for data processing, a shared EBI set-up for data submissions and distribution of data via data requests made through the EGA website. Data is also copied in the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC) infrastructure, where all stored and distributed data is encrypted Data is encrypted along the submission process and stored securely, granting its access to authorised users exclusively. During the download process, through our Python Client or Aspera, all requested data is downloaded over secure https connections. All data at the EGA is encrypted, and only accessible (for log-in and download) through secure protocols. For further information please, visit our security overview. What documentation do I need to provide? All submissions require policy’s documentation: 'Data Access Agreement (DAA)', 'Data Processing Agreement (DPA)' and 'Authorized Submitters Formulary'. The data processors (EGA) and the data owners will also sign the DPA. Will all metadata be public? Among the submitted metadata we need to make the distinction between identifiable and unidentifiable metadata: (1) the former may allow the identification of the human the sample derived from (e.g. detailed geographical providence, personal name, family ancestry…); (2) while the latter can be used to interpret the data without compromising the anonymity of the patients. The majority of the metadata submitted to the EGA corresponds to the unidentifiable category (e.g. sequencer's model). This type of metadata is publicly available on the EGA website and other EBI resources/partners’ websites. On the other hand, some parts samples’ metadata are subject to being identifiable, and thus only accessible by authorized data requesters, with the exception of: 5 submitter-defined attributes of the sample: alias, title, subject_id, gender and phenotype. It is the submitter’s responsibility not to submit sensitive metadata in these public fields. 3 anonymised fields that pinpoint the sample record in archivals: sample’s EGA stable ID (EGAN…), BioSample ID (SAMEA…) and submitter’s center name. During Submission Are there any sample specific requirements for EGA? All samples submitted to the EGA must include the attributes of biological sex, subject ID (anonymised individual identifier) and phenotype information. These are critical for data findability and its analysis, and we highly recommend using controlled ontology terms where applicable. For example: defining tumour and non-tumour samples and/or defining disease state. The EGA recommends using the Experimental Factor Ontology Database to find ontologized terms that describe your sample phenotypes. How do I get an accession number to use in my publication? You will receive your study accession number (EGAS…) upon complete your submission, either: Programmatically. As soon as the metadata is submitted and validated your study will be assigned an accession number that will be given in the submission’s response. Manually registering your study and relevant metadata using the online metadata submission tool: the EGA submitter Portal. How are files uploaded to the EGA? Data files are uploaded into private submission drop boxes (i.e. environments to which you are granted access and where you can transfer your files) using INBOX or FTP. These spaces are provided as part of the submission procedure. Before uploading any file, you must encrypt your files, . Only encrypted files shall be uploaded to the drop boxes. Why does data need to to encrypted for my submitted files? It is one of the security steps the EGA has implemented. In case of a security breach, people without the proper encryption key will not be able to read or use the information that could have been leaked. This measure is essential when working with sensitive data, such as controlled access human data. All submitters must use crypt4gh to create EGA compliant files prior to uploading them. This encryption is GPG-based, using EGA’s public key. Why are my files not available if I see them in the INBOX? There exists a time window between the data upload and the availability of such files via the Submitter Portal. For this reason, some metadata (run and analysis objects) cannot be registered until at least 24 hours after the files have been uploaded to your box. Why are MD5 sum values generated for my submitted files? We require pre- and post- encryption MD5 (message-digest) checksum values to be provided for all submitted files. These 128-bit values are computed using the content of each file, creating unique sequences that allow us to ensure that file integrity has been maintained during the transfer process. In other words, if the MD5 checksums we generate and those you generated match, we infer that the content of the transferred files is correct (i.e. files are not corrupted or truncated). MD5 checksums are computed automatically using the crypt4gh tool provided. Your submission will not be accepted and may be significantly delayed if you do not provide MD5 checksum values for all data files in the required format. How can I check if my files are correctly uploaded to the inbox? It is important to check the status pf your file so you know whether your files are in the inbox, being processed, or if there is any issue with one of them. In order to check this, you should: Look for the file locally. Drag and drop it to the file table. Then bars will appear on the table, which means that we are processing it. Green: The files checksum are correct and your file will move to “ingested files”. No further actions are needed from your end.. Red: The files checksum does not match and your file needs to be re-uploaded. Please re-upload relevant files to your inbox using the same path. After Submission How do I use my accession number in my publication? We suggest the use of the below template, using your study accession ID (EGAS…) : Data has been deposited at the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA), which is hosted by the EBI and the CRG, under accession number EGASXXXXXXXXXXX. Further information about EGA can be found at https://ega-archive.org and "The European Genome-phenome Archive of human data consented for biomedical research" Your study ID will be the one that groups your whole submission, and thus its usage is recommended as such. Nevertheless, all metadata submitted to EGA hold a unique and persistent identifier (starting with EGA…) that can be used to identify specific records. For example, you could reference a specific dataset (EGAD…) or sample (EGAN…) in your publications (see full list of identifiers). How do I make my data searchable? Once you have finalized your submission, you can schedule the data release. Please take into account that the release process needs time for the files to be archived in our system, and for the Helpdesk team to validate your submission. Can I withdraw (meta)data from the EGA? We have methods in place for the secure removal of deposited (meta)data. Contact EGA-helpdesk for further details. EGA complies with FAIRness of (meta)data, and thus, even when the data is removed we keep an entry for their identifiers in our system. In other words, we execute a soft delete on canceled objects (e.g. a study): metadata is still stored in our systems, but it loses all links, cannot be queried and data files cannot be retrieved anymore. The reason behind this behaviour is so that queries using withdrawn data properly respond back (see example of a canceled study). What happens to the data once it has been submitted to the EGA? When the data is submitted, the submitter can choose either keep their data private or schedule the release of their data.

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/FAQ

• Pharmacogenomics Research Network Antidepressant Medication Pharmacogenomic Study (PGRN-AMPS)

  This pharmacogenomic study focused on the response of patients with MDD to an 8-week course of treatment with citalopram or escitalopram. Briefly, clinical assessments and research assessments were performed at each study visit as summarized in Table 1. Many patients continued on antidepressant medication after the 8 week study. Table 1: Study timeline and patient contacts. Week Consent/Med Hx Write Rx SI Qx SCID HRS-D17 QIDSC16 CGI-I 0 SC RC RC SC SC SC 4 RC RC SC SC RC 8 RC RC SC SC RC HRS-D17=Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, QIDS-C16=Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, CGI-I=Clinical Global Impression-Improvement, SCID=Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, SC=Study Coordinator, RC=Research Clinician. Enrollment and baseline assessment. Upon initial intake, the Study Coordinator (SC) obtained informed consent as well as clinical and demographic information, including history of bone marrow or liver transplant or blood transfusion within the previous 6 weeks, and prior history of treatment during the current major depressive episode. The SC completed the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID), the HRS-D17 (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression) and the QIDS-C16 (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology) and reviewed the inclusion/exclusion criteria. After review with the Research Clinician (RC) and when appropriate, after a negative pregnancy test, the SC invited the subject to participate in the study if entry criteria were met. If the subject agreed, he/she received treatment according to the study protocol. Treatment schedule. Participants selected for inclusion in the study were seen at weeks 0, 4, and 8. The appropriate treatment antidepressant (citalopram or escitalopram) was determined following discussion between the patient and RC concerning medical, financial, and insurance considerations. The study medication citalopram was given in tablet or liquid form, depending on the patient's need. A fixed-flexible dose schedule was employed with the possibility of a dose escalation. In particular, the initial dose of citalopram was 20 mg and escitalopram was 10 mg. This dose was increased to 40 mg and 20 mg, respectively, after 4 weeks if the subject had a score of >/= 6 on the QIDS-C16 and the RC concluded that the subject could tolerate the increase. If necessary, dose was reduced at the discretion of the RC. The importance of medication compliance was discussed with the subject, and subjects were asked to bring in the medication at each visit for the purpose of counting remaining pills to assess compliance. Participants may have had an abbreviated course of therapy if they were clearly intolerant of the drug or failed to respond to a 40 mg dose of citalopram or a 20 mg dose of escitalopram. They then received standard treatment from a primary physician or psychiatrist with different medications and/or therapeutic modalities (e.g. psychotherapy). Special attention was given to subjects with suicidal ideation. Those subjects were offered additional appointments as needed to ensure their safety. Participants were also contacted by telephone at week 1 and week 2 by the Clinical Nurse Specialist (CNS) or other study personnel to ensure medication compliance and patient safety. The CNS was supervised by the study psychiatrist and principal investigator and deferred to the physician's judgment as needed. The SC was trained to notify the RC at the time of the clinical visits or the phone interviews if the subject endorsed any suicidal ideation or plans. For those subjects who were unable to attend the follow-up visits as scheduled, the patient was contacted by phone to complete the HRS-D17/QIDS-C16. The participant was also asked to return to the clinic to complete a final blood draw for the study. Adjunctive and concurrent medications. Adjunctive treatments were those used to manage transient associated symptoms (e.g., insomnia) or transient or longer-term medication side effects (e.g., sexual dysfunction). Adjunctive treatments that were not used to treat depression were allowed during the study. However, drugs in the exclusion criteria for this study were not used as adjunctive therapies. Subjects were allowed to participate in the study while receiving concurrent medications for general medical conditions as long as there was no contraindication to use while taking citalopram or escitalopram. Drug efficacy phenotype evaluation. The change in QIDS-C16 score and change in HRS-D17 score were used as the major research outcome measures to assess drug response. At each clinical research visit, the RC also completed the Clinician Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) scale. For the primary genome-wide association analyses, dichotomous outcome variables, remission and response, were defined based on the QIDS-C16 last visit score. Remission was defined as a QIDS-C16 score of 5 or less, while response was defined as at least a 50% reduction in the QIDS-C16 score from baseline. Specimen collection. Specimen collections were obtained by the General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) at St. Mary's Hospital (SMH). Subjects had blood drawn on an outpatient basis at GCRC-SMH on three separate occasions - baseline (0), week 4 and week 8 visits. Prior to sample collection, date and time of last dose of study medication was gathered at the 4 and 8 week visits. For those patients who were unable to complete the regularly scheduled visits, a dismissal blood draw was requested. GCRC then shipped samples to Mayo Clinic's Biospecimens Accessioning and Processing Lab. Genotyping and biomarker assays. DNA from 529 patients was genotyped by the RIKEN Center for Genomic Medicine (Yokohama, Japan) using Illumina Human610-Quad BeadChips (Illumina, San Diego, CA). The study also included the determination of plasma drug levels at weeks 4 and 8, and metabolite levels at baseline and weeks 4 and 8 for a subset of subjects. The primary genome-wide association study based on these data, which includes a summary of the protocol, subject description, selection of subjects for genetic analyses, and definitions of clinical outcomes, was published in the Pharmacogenomics Journal (Ji et al., 2012).

  Study phs000670

• Characterization_of_individual_foci_of_multicentric_multifocal_breast_cancer_using_targeted_next_generation_sequencing

  Multifocality or multicentricity in breast cancer may be defined as the presence of two or more tumor foci within a single quadrant of the breast or within different quadrants of the same breast, respectively. This original classification of the breast cancer as multicentric or multifocal was based on the assumption that cancers arising in the same quadrant were more likely to arise from the same ductal structures than those occurring in separate areas of the breast. The problem with these definitions is that the “quadrants” of the breast are arbitrary external designations, as no internal boundaries do exist. This project will therefore focus both on synchronous multifocal and multicentric tumors. The incidence of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers was reported to be between 13 and 75% depending on the definition used, the extent of the pathologic sampling of the breast and whether in situ disease is considered evidence of multicentricity (1). Although this incidence is variable, those figures show that it is a frequent phenomenon. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic management of the cancer. Multifocality or multicentricity has been associated with a number of more aggressive features including an increased rate of regional lymph node metastases and adverse patient outcome when compared with unifocal tumors (2-3), and a possible increased risk of local recurrence following breast conserving surgery (4). For the moment, the literature is divided on whether there is a corresponding impact on survival outcomes. Today, the current convention to stage and to treat multifocal and multicentric tumors is the classical tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging guidelines with which tumor size is assessed by the largest tumor focus without taking other foci of disease into consideration. If some papers, as the recent one from Lynch and colleagues, support the current staging convention (3), others, however, as Boyages et al. suggested that aggregate size and not the size of the largest lesion should be considered in order to refine the prognostic assessment of those tumors (5). On the top of that, the question whether multifocal/multicentric carcinomas are due to the spread of a single carcinoma throughout the breast or is due to multiple carcinomas arising simultaneously has been a matter of debate. Some studies suggested that multifocal breast cancer may result from either intramammary spread from a single primary tumor or multiple synchronous primary tumors; whereas others suggest that multiple breast carcinomas always arise from the same clone (6-8). Recently, Pietri and colleagues analyzed the biological characterization of a series of 113 multifocal/multicentric breast cancers (8) which were diagnosed over a 5-year period. The expression of estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptors, Ki-67 proliferative index, expression of HER2 and tumor grading were prospectively determined in each tumor focus, and mismatches among foci were recorded. Mismatches in ER status were present in 5 (4.4%) cases and PgR in 18 (15.9%) cases. Mismatches in tumor grading were present in 21 cases (18.6%), proliferative index (Ki-67) in 17 (15%) cases and HER2 status in 11 (9.7%) cases. Interestingly, this heterogeneity among foci has led to 14 (12.4%) patients receiving different adjuvant treatments compared with what would have been indicated if we had only taken into account the biologic status of the primary tumor. This study therefore showed that differences in biological characteristics of multifocal/multicentric lesions play a crucial role in the adjuvant treatment decision making process. In this study, we will concentrate on a larger series of patients with multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer lesions. We aim at: 1. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality according to the different breast cancer molecular subtypes (ER-/HER2-, HER2+, ER+/HER2-). 2. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality in patients with hereditary breast cancer disease (presence of germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations). Moreover, we would like to investigate if multifocal lesions with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibit a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions as demonstrated recently by Nik-Zainal and colleagues (9). 3. Correlating multifocality with clinical information in order to define its influence on patients’ survival (DFS and OS). 4. Carrying high coverage targeted gene sequencing of driver cancer genes and genes whose mutation is of therapeutic importance in order to compare clinically-relevant genetic differences between several multifocal breast cancer lesions. 5. Evaluating the impact of the distance between the different lesions on the clinical outcome but also on the genetic differences. 6. Comparing gene expression patterns between several multifocal breast cancer lesions and correlate them with the results of the targeted genes screen. 7. Characterizing the genomic and transcriptomic status of cancer related genes in metastatic lesions (local recurrence, positive lymph node or distant metastatic sites) from the same multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer patients in order to evaluate the consequence of genomic and transcriptomic heterogeneity of multifocal lesions on metastatic lesions. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic choice. This project has the potential to identify genetic/transcriptomic differences existing between several lesions constituting multifocal breast cancers, which in the routine clinical practice are usually considered to be homogeneous among them. We foresee validating significant results in a larger series of patients and this, in turn, could have a remarkable impact on the treatment and clinical management of multifocal breast cancers. Indeed, we hope to provide some evidence whether or not each focus matters in multifocal and multicentric breast cancer to define the adequate therapeutic approach, especially in the context of targeted therapies. The work to be done at Sanger will be target gene screen pooling of 1400 samples.

  Study EGAS00001000407

• Characterization of individual foci of multicentric/multifocal breast cancer using targeted next generation sequencing

  Multifocality or multicentricity in breast cancer may be defined as the presence of two or more tumor foci within a single quadrant of the breast or within different quadrants of the same breast, respectively. This original classification of the breast cancer as multicentric or multifocal was based on the assumption that cancers arising in the same quadrant were more likely to arise from the same ductal structures than those occurring in separate areas of the breast. The problem with these definitions is that the ?quadrants? of the breast are arbitrary external designations, as no internal boundaries do exist. This project will therefore focus both on synchronous multifocal and multicentric tumors. The incidence of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers was reported to be between 13 and 75% depending on the definition used, the extent of the pathologic sampling of the breast and whether in situ disease is considered evidence of multicentricity (1). Although this incidence is variable, those figures show that it is a frequent phenomenon. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic management of the cancer. Multifocality or multicentricity has been associated with a number of more aggressive features including an increased rate of regional lymph node metastases and adverse patient outcome when compared with unifocal tumors (2-3), and a possible increased risk of local recurrence following breast conserving surgery (4). For the moment, the literature is divided on whether there is a corresponding impact on survival outcomes. Today, the current convention to stage and to treat multifocal and multicentric tumors is the classical tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging guidelines with which tumor size is assessed by the largest tumor focus without taking other foci of disease into consideration. If some papers, as the recent one from Lynch and colleagues, support the current staging convention (3), others, however, as Boyages et al. suggested that aggregate size and not the size of the largest lesion should be considered in order to refine the prognostic assessment of those tumors (5). On the top of that, the question whether multifocal/multicentric carcinomas are due to the spread of a single carcinoma throughout the breast or is due to multiple carcinomas arising simultaneously has been a matter of debate. Some studies suggested that multifocal breast cancer may result from either intramammary spread from a single primary tumor or multiple synchronous primary tumors; whereas others suggest that multiple breast carcinomas always arise from the same clone (6-8). Recently, Pietri and colleagues analyzed the biological characterization of a series of 113 multifocal/multicentric breast cancers (8) which were diagnosed over a 5-year period. The expression of estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptors, Ki-67 proliferative index, expression of HER2 and tumor grading were prospectively determined in each tumor focus, and mismatches among foci were recorded. Mismatches in ER status were present in 5 (4.4%) cases and PgR in 18 (15.9%) cases. Mismatches in tumor grading were present in 21 cases (18.6%), proliferative index (Ki-67) in 17 (15%) cases and HER2 status in 11 (9.7%) cases. Interestingly, this heterogeneity among foci has led to 14 (12.4%) patients receiving different adjuvant treatments compared with what would have been indicated if we had only taken into account the biologic status of the primary tumor. This study therefore showed that differences in biological characteristics of multifocal/multicentric lesions play a crucial role in the adjuvant treatment decision making process. In this study, we will concentrate on a larger series of patients with multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer lesions. We aim at: 1. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality according to the different breast cancer molecular subtypes (ER-/HER2-, HER2+, ER+/HER2-). 2. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality in patients with hereditary breast cancer disease (presence of germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations). Moreover, we would like to investigate if multifocal lesions with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibit a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions as demonstrated recently by Nik-Zainal and colleagues (9). 3. Correlating multifocality with clinical information in order to define its influence on patients? survival (DFS and OS). 4. Carrying high coverage targeted gene sequencing of driver cancer genes and genes whose mutation is of therapeutic importance in order to compare clinically-relevant genetic differences between several multifocal breast cancer lesions. 5. Evaluating the impact of the distance between the different lesions on the clinical outcome but also on the genetic differences. 6. Comparing gene expression patterns between several multifocal breast cancer lesions and correlate them with the results of the targeted genes screen. 7. Characterizing the genomic and transcriptomic status of cancer related genes in metastatic lesions (local recurrence, positive lymph node or distant metastatic sites) from the same multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer patients in order to evaluate the consequence of genomic and transcriptomic heterogeneity of multifocal lesions on metastatic lesions. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic choice. This project has the potential to identify genetic/transcriptomic differences existing between several lesions constituting multifocal breast cancers, which in the routine clinical practice are usually considered to be homogeneous among them. We foresee validating significant results in a larger series of patients and this, in turn, could have a remarkable impact on the treatment and clinical management of multifocal breast cancers. Indeed, we hope to provide some evidence whether or not each focus matters in multifocal and multicentric breast cancer to define the adequate therapeutic approach, especially in the context of targeted therapies. The work to be done at Sanger will be target gene screen pooling of 1400 samples.

  Dataset EGAD00001000624

• eMERGE Network Imputed GWAS for 41 Phenotypes

  The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network is a consortium of ten participating sites (Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center/Boston Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation and Pennsylvania State University, Geisinger Clinic, Group Health Cooperative/University of Washington, Mayo Clinic, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Northwestern University, Vanderbilt University Medical Center) funded by the NHGRI to investigate the use of electronic medical record (EMR) systems for genomic research. The goal of eMERGE is to conduct genome-wide association studies in approximately 55,000 individuals using EMR-derived phenotypes and DNA from linked Biorepositories. Using electronic phenotyping methods, the consortium used DNA samples from all participating sites to explore the genetic determinants of over forty phenotypes, including Abdominal aortic aneurysm; Ace-Inhibitor/Cough; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; Age-related macular disease; Appendicitis; Asthma; Atopic Dermatitis; Autism; Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia; Carotid artery disease as a Quantitative Measure; caMRSA; Cataract; Clostridium difficile colitis; Extreme Obesity; Chronic Kidney Disease; Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes; Chronic Kidney Disease, Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension; Colon Polyps; Cardiorespiratory Fitness; Dementia; Diverticulosis; Diabetic retinopathy; Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease; Glaucoma; Height; Heart failure; Hypothyroidism; Lipids; Ocular hypertension; Peripheral Arterial Disease; QRS duration; Red blood cell indices; Remission of Diabetes after ROUX-EN-Y gastric bypass surgery; Resistant hypertension; MACE while on Statins; Type 2 Diabetes; Venous Thromboembolism; White blood cell indices; and Zoster virus infection, as well as using the phenome-wide association study (PheWAS) paradigm to replicate and discover relationships between targeted genotypes with multiple phenotypes. Sites and participants include: Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania (CHOP): The Center for Applied Genomics (CAG) at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) is a high-throughput, highly automated genotyping and sequencing facility equipped with state-of-the-art genotyping and sequencing platforms. Children who are treated at the Children's Hospital Healthcare Network and their parents may be eligible to take part in a major initiative to collect more than 100,000 blood samples, covering a wide range of pediatric diseases. A large majority of participants consenting to prospective genomic analyses also consent to analysis of their de-identified electronic medical records (EMRs). EMRs are longitudinal, with a mean duration of 6.5 years. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center/Boston's Children's Hospital (CCHMC/BCH): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) and Boston Children's Hospital (BCH) are pediatric institutions dedicated to improving health and welfare of children and to the shared purpose of discovery and practical application of new genomic information to the ordinary care of children. The CCHMC/BCH site has been built on a five-year history of collaboration, particularly in patient electronic record (ERM)-related informatics, the basis of much of eMERGE II. CCHMC and BCH together bring an extraordinary faculty to eMERGE II who are committed to diseases that afflict children, specifically phenotypes that focus upon diseases of children in ways that will leverage the available eMERGE adult GWAS and EMRs to discover meaningful use results. CCHMC/BCH plans to demonstrate real-time execution of phenotypic selection across their two distinct pediatric institutions as a model for ensuring phenotypic standardization and for national scalability. They will also look carefully at parents' responses to results and use of their children's research results and better understand the factors that influence their decisions about learning incidental findings. In addition to patient and parent perceptions CCHMC/BCH will also explore clinician perceptions of pharmacogenetic research results after EMR integration. Geisinger Health System: A research cohort of adult Geisinger Clinic patients was enrolled from community-based primary care clinics of the Geisinger Health System. Patients were eligible for enrollment if they were a primary care patient of a Geisinger Clinic physician and were scheduled for a non-emergent clinic visit. All participants provided written informed consent and HIPAA authorization. Consenting patients agreed to provide blood samples for broad biomedical research use, and permission to access data in their Geisinger electronic medical record for research. The enrollment rate was 90% of patients approached. The demographics of the cohort approximate those of the Geisinger Clinic outpatient population. Research blood samples were collected during an outpatient clinical phlebotomy encounter. Research blood samples are coded and stored in a central biorepository. Samples are linkable to clinical data in a de-identified manner for research via an IRB-approved data broker process. For genomic analysis, DNA is extracted from EDTA-anticoagulated whole blood. Group Health(GH)/University of Washington (UW): GH participants for the PGx project were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Northwest Institute of Genetic Medicine (NWIGM) biorepository, and provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N~6300.) Participants were eligible if aged 50 - 65 years old at the time of their enrollment into the NWIGM repository, living, enrolled in GH's integrated group practice, and had completed an online Health Risk Appraisal. The selection algorithm was based on several data sources from the EHR at Group Health: 1. Demographics - participants with self-reported race as Asian or African ancestry were prioritized and selected to enrich for non-European ancestry; 2. Diagnosis and procedure codes - participants were selected if found to have a history of hypertension, atrial fibrillation (AF), or congestive heart failure (CHF). Participants with a history of arrhythmia were added if the entire selection algorithm did not generate 900 individuals. We also enriched for participants with EHR evidence of actionable indications related to PGRNSeq genes. Participants were selected if found to have an ICD9 code for malignant hyperthermia, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure or long QT syndrome (LQTS); 3. Laboratory values - if participants had any laboratory event of creatine kinase (CK) >1000, and were dispensed statins within 6 months of the event, then they were selected; and 4. Medications - participants were excluded if ever on carbamazepine or had a current regimen of warfarin. Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Marshfield Clinic, Pennsylvania State University (Marshfield): The Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project is a population-based biobank in central Wisconsin with more than 20,000 adult subjects who provided written, informed consent to access their medical records and provided a blood sample from which DNA was extracted and plasma and serum stored. In addition to an average of 30 years of medical history data, a questionnaire about environmental exposures, including a detailed food frequency questionnaire, is available to facilitate gene/environment studies. Mayo Clinic: The Mayo biobank is a disease-specific biobank for vascular diseases including peripheral arterial disease (PAD). PAD patients were identified from individuals referred to the non-invasive vascular laboratory for lower extremity arterial evaluation. Since 1997, laboratory findings have been recorded into an electronic database employing an in-house software package for data archiving and retrieval; this data becomes part of the Mayo EMR. Patients referred to the center with suspected PAD undergo a comprehensive non-invasive evaluation including the ankle-brachial index (ABI) - the ratio of blood pressure measured in the upper arms divided by blood pressure measured at the ankles. Controls subjects are identified from patients referred to the Cardiovascular Health Clinic for stress ECG. The prevalence of PAD in patients with normal exercise capacity who do not have inducible ischemia on the stress ECG , was <1%. Data regarding risk factors for atherosclerosis such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking are ascertained from the EMR. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai School (Mt. Sinai): The Institute for Personalized Medicine (IPM) Biobank Project is a consented, EMR-linked medical care setting biorepository of the Mount Sinai Medical Center (MSMC) drawing from a population of over 70,000 inpatients and 800,000 outpatient visits annually. MSMC serves diverse local communities of upper Manhattan, including Central Harlem (86% African American), East Harlem (88% Hispanic Latino), and Upper East Side (88% Caucasian/white) with broad health disparities. IPM Biobank populations include 28% African American (AA), 38% Hispanic Latino (HL) predominantly of Caribbean origin, 23% Caucasian/White (CW). IPM Biobank disease burden is reflective of health disparities with broad public health impact: average body mass index of 28.9 and frequencies of hypertension (55%), hypercholesterolemia (32%), diabetes (30%), coronary artery disease (25%), chronic kidney disease (23%), among others. Biobank operations are fully integrated in clinical care processes, including direct recruitment from clinical sites, waiting areas and phlebotomy stations by dedicated Biobank recruiters independent of clinical care providers, prior to or following a clinician standard of care visit. Recruitment currently occurs at a broad spectrum of over 30 clinical care sites. Northwestern University: The NUgene Project is a repository with longitudinal medical information from participating patients at affiliated hospitals and outpatient clinics from the Northwestern University Medical Center. Participants' DNA samples are coupled with data from a self-reported questionnaire and continuously updated data from our Electronic Medical Record (EMR) representing actual clinical care events. Northwestern has a state-of-the art, comprehensive inpatient and outpatient EMR system of over 2 million patients. NUgene has broad access to participant data for all outpatient visits as well as inpatient data via a consolidated data warehouse. NUgene participants consent to distribution and use of their coded DNA samples and data for a broad range of genetic research by third-party investigators. Vanderbilt University: BioVU, Vanderbilt's DNA databank, is an enabling resource for exploration of the relationships among genetic variation, disease susceptibility, and variable drug responses, and represents a key first step in moving the emerging sciences of genomics and pharmacogenomics from research tools to clinical practice. BioVU acquires DNA from discarded blood samples collected from routine patient care. The biobank is linked to de-identified clinical data extracted from Vanderbilt's EMR, which forms the basis for phenotype definitions used in genotype-phenotype correlations.

  Study phs000888

• 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