611 results for "fc 26 ultimate team fast coins Visit Buyfc26coins.com Hyvä käyttöliittymä verkkosivustolla..xlc6"

in 11.61 milliseconds.

• Jackson Heart Study (JHS-BioLINCC)

  Accessing Data: Please refer to “Authorized Access” below regarding accessing data through the BioData Catalyst ecosystem. The data from this accession is not available for download through dbGaP.Related Studies: Other Jackson Heart Study data available include: Imaging studies (JHS-Imaging), Genetics and genomics (The Jackson Heart Study, phs000286.v7.p2), and Collaborative Cohort of Cohorts for COVID-19 Research (C4R-JHS, phs002907.v1.p1): Jackson Heart Study (phs002907.v1.p1).Available Data: Data available for request include Jackson Heart Study visit 1-3 examination cycles, collated annual follow-up communication data through 2016, and follow-up for mortality, heart disease, and stroke events through 2014.Objectives: The objectives of the Jackson Heart Study are to: 1) investigate the associations of biological, psychosocial, and behavioral factors with the incidence atherosclerotic events and health outcomes in an African American cohort; and 2) increase access to and the participation of African American populations and scientists in biomedical research and professions.Background: It has long been recognized that African Americans share a disproportionate burden of deleterious health outcomes including diabetes, hypertension, kidney disease and early onset of cardiovascular disease. The Jackson Heart Study was initiated in 2000 to explore potential mechanisms and mediators of health outcomes in a large African American cohort. In addition, the JHS conducts a variety of community education and outreach activities to promote healthy lifestyles to reduce disease risk burden and student training programs to promote and support public health research.Participants: African American men and women, age 35-84 at entry. Of the 5306 cohort members enrolled in the study, the data repository contains data from 3,883 that provided informed consent to share their data with investigators not affiliated with the study.Design: Participants were enrolled in the study from 2000-2004 from urban and rural areas of three counties (Hinds, Madison and Rankin) in the Jackson, MS metropolitan statistical area. Participants were enrolled from each of 4 recruitment pools: a random sample component (17%), volunteer component (30%), currently enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study (31%), and secondary family members (22%). Recruitment was limited to non-institutionalized adult African Americans age 35-84 years, except in the family cohort where those age ≥21 years were eligible. The final cohort of 5,306 participants includes 6.59% of all African American residents aged 35-84 (N=76,426, US Census 2000). Data collection at the baseline exam included a medical history, physical examination, blood/urine analytes and interview questions on areas such as: physical activity; stress, coping and spirituality; racism and discrimination; socioeconomic status; and health care access.The current release of the Jackson Heart Study includes data collected at baseline, exam 2 (2005-2008), and exam 3 (2009-2013). Annual follow-up and surveillance of clinical cardiovascular events is ongoing.

  Study phs003740

• Center for Common Disease Genomics [CCDG] - Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) - Global Microbiome Conservancy Host Exomes

  The human body is a complex ecosystem, hosting tens of billions of bacteria, primarily in the gut. This community, known as the 'gut microbiome', is vital to human health, affecting functions ranging from metabolism, immunity, and development, to behavior. Conversely, reduced microbiome diversity and other imbalances of the gut community (dysbiosis) are associated with many diseases of the industrialized world, such as metabolic syndrome, asthma, and inflammatory bowel diseases among others. Microbiome-based interventions thus hold the potential to revolutionize our understanding of, and therapeutic approaches to, many aspects of human health and disease. Despite many advances, current understanding of the human microbiome is largely limited to majority ethnic groups in industrialized nations, and does not reflect the full diversity of human commensal microbiota. In addition to the scientific ramifications of minority underrepresentation, there are significant translational and ethical implications as well: First, failing to capture the full diversity of healthy human microbiota may limit our ability to understand and generate effective therapeutics for many microbiome-associated diseases. Second, underrepresented groups are less likely to benefit from microbiome-based medical advances tailored to well-studied populations, propagating healthcare inequities. The window of opportunity to characterize human microbiome diversity is closing rapidly. Human gut microbial diversity is diminishing around the globe, due to the spread of Westernized diets and lifestyles, which are associated with reduced microbiome biodiversity. The Global Microbiome Conservancy (GMbC) is a non-profit collaboration between scientists and communities around the world that aims to 1) preserve the full biodiversity of the human gut microbiome, 2) characterize its evolution across populations and host lifestyles and 3) investigate its interactions with the human host. We are collecting gut microbiome and human DNA samples from diverse populations around the world, from isolated groups to urbanized populations, to culture and study this essential biodiversity and to preserve it in a living "seed bank" as a long-term safeguard against future extinctions. The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) has funded a collaborative large-scale genome sequencing effort to comprehensively identify rare risk and protective variants contributing to multiple common disease phenotypes. Called the Centers for Common Disease Genomics (CCDG), this initiative will explore a range of diseases with the ultimate goal of: Undertaking variant discovery for enough different examples of disease architectures and study designs to better understand the general principles of the genomic architecture underlying common, complex inherited diseases. Understanding how best to design rare variant studies for common disease. Developing resources, informatics tools, and innovative approaches and technologies for multiple disease research communities and the wider biomedical research community. The initial focus of the CCDGs will be in cardiovascular disease (early-onset coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, hemorrhagic stroke), neuropsychiatric disease (epilepsy, autism), and autoimmune/inflammatory disease (type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease). The Broad Institute is one of four selected CCDG project centers. Both exome and genotyping information of GMbC participants will help understanding how recruited human populations are structured and genetically related. This human genetic structure will be analyzed in light of gut microbiome compositional and genomic differences to illuminate associations between specific microbiome traits and human groups and the evolutionary processes involved in the co-evolution of human hosts and their gut microbiome. It will also provide variant information for critical genes shaping the composition of microbiomes, such as genes involved in innate and adaptive immunity (e.g. antimicrobial peptides) or in the regulation of the immune response (e.g. Nod2). Association studies between specific variants in these genes and microbiome features will be performed, which will then be validated with in vitro and in vivo experiments. Human data from GMbC cohorts will also increase the genetic diversity of human populations, providing additional variant information for many susceptible loci that were found to be associated with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. The whole genome sequencing data generated is comprised of samples from diverse and indigenous populations. Raw sequencing data, metadata, vcf and phenotype data at the individual level for a subset of the cohort's samples are available at https://anvilproject.org/data. For questions about availability, contact help@lists.anvilproject.org. Microbiome data for the samples sequenced in this study can be found in phs002235 Global Microbiome Conservancy Sequence Data.

  Study phs002205

• Epidemiological study comparing rates and risk factors for dementia in African Americans in Indianapolis and Yoruba living in Ibadan, Nigeria

  In 1991 collaboration between researchers at Indiana University School of Medicine and the University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria established the Indianapolis-Ibadan Dementia Project. It is a longitudinal, prospective population-based comparative epidemiological study of the prevalence and incidence rates and risk factors of Alzheimer's disease and other age associated dementias. The project compares samples of community-dwelling elderly (age > 70 years) African Americans living in Indianapolis to Yoruba living in Ibadan, Nigeria, employing the same research design, methods, and investigators. It initially reported significantly lower prevalence rates of disorders in the Yoruba compared to the African Americans. In subsequent waves of the study (1994-1995, 1997-1998) incidence rates, rates of newly diagnosed cases, were also found to be significantly lower in the Yoruba. In genetic studies, the frequency of the APOE 4 allele was about the same in the two groups. APOE 4 was a significant risk factor for Alzheimer's disease and dementia in the Americans, while no association was found for the Yoruba. The APOE 2 allele appears to be protective in the Americans, but not the Yoruba. A constellation of factors often associated with vascular risk including a history of hypertension, diabetes, and high cholesterol levels is less common in the Yoruba than in the American group. An interaction was observed between cholesterol, APOE genotype and Alzheimer's disease in both study groups. In 2001-2002 survivors of the original cohort were once again evaluated (N~800 in each site) and 2,000 additional individuals age 70 years and older were enrolled in each site. Blood samples were collected from approximately 1,500 study participants in each site for genetic studies and analysis of biochemical risk factors for vascular disease. Subsequent waves of field work were conducted in 2004, 2007, 2009, and 2011. This fieldwork followed the classic two-stage study design. The study design involves an in-home screening interview with the study participant, which includes a cognitive assessment, medical history and current medications, brief neurological examination, height and weight, blood pressure measurement and assessment of social involvement. There is also a screening interview with a close relative of the study participant to assess activities of daily living, personality change, and medical history of the study participant. On the basis of the screening interview a sample of study participants (N~500 in each site) is selected for a full clinical diagnostic dementia work up which includes a neurological test battery, extensive interview with a family member and examination by a clinician. Diagnoses are made in a consensus diagnosis conference using the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised Third Edition (DSM-III R) and International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) for dementia. The criteria of the National Institute for Neurological and Communicative Disease and Stroke-Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association were used to diagnose possible and probable Alzheimer's disease. The focus of the study is risk factors for dementia and Alzheimer's disease, but also of particular importance is the question of mild cognitive impairment. This refers to the condition of having some decline in cognition but the decline is not sufficient to meet the criteria for dementia. We have studied this over the course of this project. In follow up studies of individuals who have this diagnosis about one third of them are better at follow up, about a third are about the same, and about a third decline more to meet the criteria for dementia. This is a very important issue for researchers because the ultimate goal of the research is to figure out how to identify the individuals who will definitely progress to dementia. If there are clear identifiers, it would be possible to make interventions, while individuals still function well, and possibly prevent the development of dementia altogether or delay the onset significantly. This is crucial because at the moment individuals usually do not enter into the medical care system until the dementia symptoms are quite severe, and the pathological damage to the brain cannot be undone.

  Study phs000378

• Heart Failure Network: Diuretic Optimization Strategies Evaluation in Acute Heart Failure (HFN DOSE-BioLINCC)

  ObjectivesThe DOSE study sought to evaluate the most effective dosing (high vs. low) and administration (continuous infusion vs. intermittent boluses) combination of the diuretic Furosemide in the treatment of patients with acute decompensated heart failure.BackgroundAcute decompensated heart failure is the most common cause of hospital admissions among patients older than 65 years of age and is responsible for more than 1 million hospitalizations annually in the United States. Intravenous loop diuretics are an essential component of current treatment and are administered to approximately 90% of patients who are hospitalized with heart failure. Despite decades of clinical experience with these agents, prospective data to guide the use of loop diuretics are sparse, and current guidelines are based primarily on expert opinion. As a result, clinical practice varies widely with regard to both the mode of administration and the dosing.SubjectsA total of 308 patients were enrolled between March 2008 and November 2009 at 26 clinical sites in the United States and Canada. DesignThe DOSE study was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design. Patients were randomly assigned to either a low-dose strategy (total intravenous furosemide dose equal to their total daily oral loop diuretic dose in furosemide equivalents) or a high-dose strategy (total daily intravenous furosemide dose 2.5 times their total daily oral loop diuretic dose in furosemide equivalents) and to administration of furosemide either by intravenous bolus every 12 hours or by continuous intravenous infusion.The study treatment, with group assignments concealed, was continued for up to 72 hours. At 48 hours, the treating physician had the option of adjusting the diuretic strategy on the basis of the clinical response. An assessment of biomarkers, including creatinine, cystatin C, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, was performed at a central core laboratory at baseline, 72 hours, and 60 days. Patients were followed for clinical events to day 60. The coprimary end points were patients' global assessment of symptoms, quantified as the area under the curve (AUC) of the score on a visual-analogue scale over the course of 72 hours, and the change in the serum creatinine level from baseline to 72 hours.ConclusionsAmong patients with acute decompensated heart failure, there were no significant differences in patients' global assessment of symptoms or in the change in renal function when diuretic therapy was administered by bolus as compared with continuous infusion or at a high dose as compared with a low dose. (Felker et. al., 2011, PMID: 21366472)

  Study phs003524

• Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics - Underserved Populations (RADx-UP): COVID-19 Testing and Vaccination Social Network Diffusion for Diverse Criminal Legal Involved Communities

  This RADx-UP Phase II proposal, "Social network diffusion of COVID-19 prevention for diverse Criminal Legal Involved Communities", will implement a situation appropriate COVID-19 testing and vaccination social network diffusion intervention - C3 - building upon RADx-UP Phase I lessons and successful social network prevention interventions developed previously by the research team. C3 Criminal Legal Involved (CLI) populations encompass those non-incarcerated who have experienced recent arrest, incarceration, probation, parole or diversion programs such as drug courts. While increases in COVID-19 testing have been observed among this group, there remain members with limited testing history as well as individuals who are vaccine hesitant. COVID-19 prevention messaging can no longer be simplified to "everyone test and/or everyone vaccinate" as testing and vaccination decisions among community members are sensitive to personal histories (i.e., prior infection), local infection rates (i.e., low rates) and testing/vaccination availability. As COVID-19 prevention efforts have become more complicated (i.e., test if exposed), people tend to focus on the messenger, and particularly those that are close to them. Personal connections and communications within existing personal network structures, such as families, friends and other trusted acquaintances represent the cornerstone to increase situation appropriate testing and overcoming COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. C3 builds upon RADx-UP I, by using a network diffusion approach facilitated through motivational interviewing purposefully geared to mobilize one's own organic social network to increase context appropriate testing and vaccine uptake. Through this process we will maximize the primary benefit and impact of this type of intervention which also has the intended effect of increasing likelihood that the messenger themselves will undergo the same behavior change that they have been trained to promote. We will leverage infrastructure developed in RADx-UP Phase I, which includes 4 high-impact sites across the Central US from Phase I: Baton Rouge LA, Little Rock AR, Indianapolis IN, and Chicago IL. We will utilize established engagement efforts already in place and continue to fully integrate communities in the strategic application of the intervention. We will use the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to guide implementation. C3 aims to: Aim 1a. Test the efficacy (3-month situation appropriate testing or vaccination) of a network diffusion intervention (C3) versus an existing COVID-19 testing and vaccine linkage to care intervention among: 1) primary study participants (primary outcome); and 2) secondary study participants connected to primary participants (secondary outcome) using a RCT design. Aim 1b. Explore the mechanisms for differential intervention effects at the individual and network-level that may increase situation appropriate testing and/or vaccination uptake. Aim 2. Examine key RE-AIM components in real time tied to the implementation of the network diffusion intervention (C3).

  Study phs003234

• Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (ARIC-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. At present, the ARIC sIRB has determined that ARIC data cannot be shared with for-profit entities.Related Studies Other ARIC data available include: Imaging studies (ARIC-Imaging), Genetics and genomics (ARIC, phs000280.v8.p2), Collaborative Cohort of Cohorts for COVID-19 Research (C4R): ARIC (phs002988.v1.p1), and as a component of the Sleep Heart Health Study (SHHS-BioLINCC, phs003637.v1.p1). Available Data Data available for request include ARIC v1-v8 examination cycles, collated annual follow-up communication data for contact years 2-32, and follow-up for mortality, heart disease, and stroke events through 2019. Also included are data from ancillary studies. Objectives The objectives of ARIC are to: 1) investigate associations of factors, including those not previously measured in cohort studies, with prevalence of atherosclerosis and incidence of CHD, clinical stroke and other cardiovascular diseases; and 2) measure cardiovascular disease occurrence and trends and relate these to community levels of, and changes in, risk factors, medical care and atherosclerosis. Background At the time of project initiation, the NHLBI had long recognized the need for longitudinal studies to identify the biochemical and physiological markers and specific environmental factors which place individuals at high risk for the major atherosclerosis diseases. The development of reliable ultrasound examination of peripheral arteries enhanced the expected benefit of such studies. Community surveillance planning began for ARIC in response to recommendations of the 1978 NHLBI Workshop on the Decline in CHD Mortality and has been extended in its purpose to evaluate the large geographic differences in U.S. mortality. Participants Black and white men and women, age 45-64 at entry; sample size: 15,792. Design ARIC is a large-scale, long-term prospective study that measures associations of established and suspected coronary heart disease risk factors with both atherosclerosis and new CHD events in men and women from four geographically diverse communities. The project has two components: community surveillance of morbidity and mortality; and repeated examinations of a representative cohort of men and women in each community. The community surveillance involves abstracting hospital records and death certificates and investigating out-of-hospital deaths. The representative cohorts include approximately 4,000 persons from each community. Community surveillance data includes detailed hospital record abstraction, ECG tracings, and event adjudication. Data from out-of-hospital events in the community include physician, informant, and coroner questionnaires as well as death certificate data and event adjudication. Community surveillance ended in 2014.Cohort participants were examined four times at three year intervals between 1987 and 1998, and have been continuously contacted annually to update their medical histories. Atherosclerosis was measured by carotid ultrasonography. Risk factors studied include: blood lipids, lipoprotein cholesterols, and apolipoproteins; plasma hemostatic factors; blood chemistries and hematology; sitting, supine and standing blood pressures; anthropometry; fasting blood glucose and insulin levels; ECG findings; cigarette and alcohol use; physical activity levels; dietary aspects; and family history. Clinic visits were restarted in 2011 with ARIC visit 5.

  Study phs003738

• The Federated EGA network

  In the last 10 years, most human omics data has been generated in the context of research consortia while recently there has been an emergence of large cohorts of human data generated by healthcare initiatives. Many countries in Europe now have nascent personalised medicine programmes. Thus, human genomics is shifting from being predominantly research-driven to being funded through healthcare systems. Genetic data generated in a healthcare context is subject to more stringent information governance than research data and nonetheless all data must adhere to national data protections laws. In this context, EGA identified the need for the development of a federated network to enable secure sharing of data whilst enabling genetic data to remain within the jurisdiction in which it was generated. The Federated EGA is designed to support national data management requirements for genomic and clinical data collected from citizens as part of healthcare or biomedical research projects. It includes a secure authorised access mechanism to support research use of these data across Europe and worldwide. We have engaged with over 14 ELIXIR countries to develop the federation model. The EGA federated configuration is composed of Central EGA, Federated EGA nodes and Community EGA nodes: Central EGA offers international submissions and helpdesk support, currently EGA co-managed by EMBL-EBI and CRG, Federated EGA nodes offer EGA services to researchers within their national jurisdiction, Community EGA nodes are individual institutions or initiatives with human genetic data intended to be shared with the research community. Key services available in the Federated EGA structure are: Central EGA Federated EGA node Community EGA nodes Data submission Offers international submissions service Offers submission service in a particular jurisdiction Does not offer an external submissions service Helpdesk support Provides external international helpdesk Provides helpdesk support for submitters in its jurisdiction and for approved users of data managed at its facilities Provides helpdesk support only for approved users of data managed at its facilities Data distribution Manages worldwide distribution for data hosted at Central EGA Manages worldwide distribution for data hosted at Federated EGA node Distribution for data hosted at Community EGA node EMBL-EBI and CRG have prepared a series of documents describing the overall governance and coordination framework. These describe the Federated EGA structure, the rights and responsibilities of the different parties and governing committees, and node operation guidelines. The federation governance proposal is under review by the first countries invited to join as Federated nodes, with further interested countries likely to join in the coming years. The Central EGA team has been working closely with many ELIXIR partners, including ELIXIR Finland, Luxembourg, Germany, Norway, Spain and Sweden.

  Blog the-federated-ega-network

• Submission FAQ

  Submission FAQ Before Submission Is the EGA the right archive for my data? TThe 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

• Lung Tissue Research Consortium (LTRC-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. Biospecimens: Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from LTRC include DNA, Plasma, Serum, Tissue - FFPE Cassettes, Tissue – RNALater Frozen, and Tissue - Snap Frozen. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic research is subject to a tiered consent. Objectives: The LTRC was a biobank resource established by the NHLBI to collect and distribute lung tissue, blood samples, clinical data, and radiographic studies from participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), other related idiopathic interstitial pneumonias (IIP) and interstitial pneumonias associated with connective tissue diseases who undergo medically-indicated lung resection. All tissue and blood specimens and clinical data were banked centrally and stored for distribution to external investigators who have approved study proposals to investigate the pathogenesis or management of lung diseases. The ultimate goal of this program was to enable research that illuminates the pathobiology of lung diseases and leads to novel interventional treatments for these conditions. Background: Chronic lung diseases are a main cause of death and disability in the United States. COPD affects over 14 million individuals in the United States and represents the third leading cause of mortality. Cigarette smoking is a major risk factor. However, only one of six individuals who smoke develops COPD. This could imply either an individual susceptibility or an additional immunologic or infectious injury to lung cells. Current treatments offer symptomatic relief, but do not prevent disease progression. Better understanding of disease pathogenesis, including the potential roles of lung parenchymal cell apoptosis, immunologic injury, and inflammation may lead to therapies that improve survival and quality of life. Interstitial pneumonias, including IPF and those associated with connective tissue disease, are less common than COPD, but for many of these diseases there are poor outcomes. For example, IPF has a 50% survival rate 2-3 years following diagnosis, and currently no treatment exists which prolongs survival. The prevalence of IPF is approximately 28 cases per 100,000. The underlying histology of IPF is usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP), which can also occur in connective tissue diseases. The incidences of other interstitial pneumonias such as non-specific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) or acute interstitial pneumonia (AIP) are less frequent but also occur as an expression of interstitial lung disease in the connective tissue diseases. Moreover, there is significant crossover of these three interstitial pneumonias so that cases of IPF/UIP may also reveal fibrotic NSIP and be complicated by episodes of AIP. This implies common injuries but dissimilar histological responses. All of these processes are characterized by epithelial injury, uncontrolled fibroproliferation and the deposition of collagen, irrespective of the histology. It is clear that a better understanding of the genesis of the interstitial pneumonias is required before effective interventions can be developed. Participants: A total of 4,486 participants were enrolled, and lung tissue was obtained from 3,333 of these participants.Design: Written informed consent of each participant was required before any LTRC procedure was performed. Phenotypic data were then obtained that included recording of relevant medical information, a limited exposure history, radiological evaluation, and pulmonary physiological and lung function testing. Questionnaires were administered to determine the extent of symptoms, associated medical illnesses, smoking, environmental and occupational exposures, and quality of life. Laboratory testing included pulmonary function testing, a six-minute walk test, and chest x-ray CT. Blood specimens were collected both for defining the clinical phenotype of donors and to obtain serum, plasma, and DNA for later investigative purposes. At the time of surgery, lung tissues were collected and processed for long-term storage. The LTRC collected only the 'non-tumorous' portions of lung tissue from surgical procedures performed for primary or metastatic lung tumors and received those specimens only after the local pathologist had procured all tissue required for clinical care. Samples of appropriate size were cut and placed in formalin, RNAlater, glutaraldehyde, or liquid nitrogen within 30 minutes of excision (approximately 5% of cases exceeded this target time). Blood and tissue specimens were subsequently shipped to a central Tissue Repository for further processing and long-term storage. A Radiology Center provided quality control and quality assessment of CT data. A Data Coordinating Center managed study operations and maintained a repository of study data. Conclusions: LTRC established a biospecimen collection that is unique in its size, diseases included, standardization of methods, and extent of phenotypic data, serving as a valuable resource to facilitate research on the pathobiology of lung diseases.

  Study phs003913

• Molecularly matched targeted therapies plus radiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma without MGMT promoter hypermethylation (N2M2/NOA-20 phase I/IIa umbrella trial)

  Background: Patients with glioblastoma without MGMT promoter hypermethylation are unlikely to benefit from temozolomide (TMZ). Trials aiming at replacing TMZ with targeted agents in not molecularly selected patient populations have failed. Methods: This phase I/IIa umbrella trial aimed at showing safety, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of targeted compounds in addition to standard radiotherapy initiated within 42 days postoperatively. Molecular diagnostics and bioinformatic evaluation are performed within 28 days after surgery. Stratification for treatment takes place in five subtrials, including alectinib, idasanutlin, palbociclib, vismogedib and temsirolimus, according to the best matching molecular alteration. Patients without matching alterations are randomized between subtrials without strong biomarkers using atezolizumab and asunercept and TMZ as standard of care. Primary objective of the phase I parts of the trial was dose finding or dose validation. In the phase IIa trials, centrally determined progression-free survival at six months (PFS-6) is used as endpoint for efficacy with interim analyses for futility (H0: p=0.231). Results: From May 2018 through July 2022, 301 patients were enrolled and 228 treated in 13 German NOA sites. The alectinib and vismodegib subtrials were closed since no molecularly matching patients were accrued; the idasanutlin subtrial was closed prior to the optimal dose at nine patients at discretion of the company providing the drug. The TMZ subtrial showed a PFS-6 of 18.52% (10/54 patients) (p=0.831) and a median overall survival (OS) of 12.1 months. Asunercept: PFS-6 of 15.4% (4/26) (p=0.8825) and OS of 12.8 months. Atezolizumab: PFS-6 of 21.4% (9/42) (p=0.660) and OS of 11.7 months. Palbociclib with patients demonstrating CDK4 amplification or CDKN2A/B codeletion: PFS-6 of 24.4% (10/41) (p=0.4823) and OS of 12.6 months. Temsirolimus with patients demonstrating mTOR activation: PFS-6 of 39.1% (18/46) (p=0.0109) and OS of 15.4 months. The regimen-limiting toxicity (RLT)-rate is 34.8%, which is insignificantly above the predefined unacceptable rate for RLTs of 30%. Most RLTs had severity grade 3, one RLT had severity grade 4. No RLTs resulted in death. Conclusions: N2M2 allows for elaborate molecular testing being integrated into the treatment decision and efficient determination of treatment activity for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. There is clinical activity of temsirolimus in patients with tumors harboring an activated mTOR pathway although this is not positively prognostic without mTOR inhibition; there is no clinical activity for asunercept and atezolizumab in not molecularly selected patients and also palbociclib in molecularly selected patients.

  Study EGAS00001008033