431 results for "fc points ps4 Besuche die Website Buyfc26coins.com. Alles easy, top..XkV1"

in 14.84 milliseconds.

• Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training (HF-ACTION-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.ObjectivesThe HF-ACTION study examined whether exercise training reduces a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization for patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure symptoms. Background Heart failure (HF) is a major and growing cardiovascular syndrome that is the end result of many cardiovascular disorders. Although evidence-based drug and device therapies decrease mortality, hospitalizations, and HF symptoms and improve quality of life, many patients treated with these regimens often remain burdened by dyspnea and fatigue, diminished exercise tolerance, reduced quality of life, recurrent hospitalizations, and early mortality. Whereas rest was traditionally recommended for HF patients, there has been evidence that physical deconditioning may play a key role in the progression of symptoms and poor outcomes. Previous studies have shown positive effects of exercise training on exercise capacity, quality of life, and biomarkers and suggest that exercise training might improve survival and decrease HF hospitalizations. Nonetheless, there remains a safety concern regarding exercise training in HF and a large scale, multicenter, controlled clinical trial was needed to provide definitive clinical outcome data. Participants A total of 2,331 participants were randomized. 2,130 consented to share data with non-commercial entities, and 1,753 consented to share for commercial purposes. Design All participants underwent baseline cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Test results were reviewed by investigators to identify significant arrhythmias or ischemia that would prevent safe exercise training, to determine appropriate levels of exercise training, and to establish training heart rate ranges. Demographics, socioeconomic status, past medical history, current medications, physical exam, and the most recent laboratory tests were obtained prior to randomization. All participants received detailed self-management educational materials which included information on medications, fluid management, symptom exacerbation, sodium intake, and physical activity. Participants randomized to the exercise training arm first participated in a structured, group-based, supervised exercise program, with a goal of 3 sessions per week for a total of 36 sessions in 3 months. The primary exercises were walking, treadmill, or stationary cycling. Exercise was initiated at 15 to 30 minutes per session at a heart rate corresponding to 60% of heart rate reserve, and was increased after 6 sessions to 30 to 35 minutes duration and 70% of heart rate reserve. Participants began home-based exercise after completing 18 supervised sessions and were to fully transition to home exercise after 36 supervised sessions. The target training regimen for home exercise was 5 times per week for 40 minutes at a heart rate of 60% to 70% of heart rate reserve. Participants randomized to the usual care group were not provided with a formal exercise prescription. To provide comparable levels of attention from study personnel, all participants were called every 2 weeks for the first 9 months, monthly until 24 months of follow-up, and quarterly thereafter. Participants returned for clinic visits every 3 months for the first 2 years of participation and yearly thereafter for up to 4 years. Follow-up assessments included cardiopulmonary exercise testing, a 6-minute walk test, and a physical activity questionnaire. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality, the composite of cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, and the composite of cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization. Conclusions After adjustment for highly prognostic predictors of the primary end point, exercise training was associated with modestly significant reductions for both all-cause mortality or hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization.

  Study phs003599

• 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

• Metadata Public API

  Metadata Rest Endpoints Common Aspects Functionality Identifiers Requests and Responses Request Response Querying Querying by Object Cross-Querying by Object Common Aspects Functionality The Metadata REST API allows EGA users to request metadata from the EGA. Using this api you will be able to obtain the publicly available information from EGA study, sample, experiment, run, analysis, policy, dac and dataset. The API also allows for objects to be cross-referenced in order to obtain for example all the datasets linked to a dac. Identifiers EGA objects can be identified by their unique accession. These are ID's displayed everywhere, shared among all EGA locations and specific for each data type (More information on the list below) EGA Accession ID EGA Object description EGAS EGA Study Accession ID EGAC EGA DAC Accession ID EGAP EGA Policy Accession ID EGAN EGA Sample Accession ID EGAR EGA Run Accession ID EGAX EGA Experiment ID EGAZ EGA Analysis Accession ID EGAD EGA Dataset Accession ID EGAB EGA Submission ID EGAF EGA File Unique Accession ID Server Request and Response Request All the endpoints implement these two HTTP methods, GET and HEAD. Moreover, there is an authentication layer that allows to disclose the private information about each object if the user runs the endpoint with their token and has permissions to the related dataset. HTTP Method Description GET Returns the objects and their public information (including private information if the user has permissions) HEAD Returns the count of objects to be returned Response API responses are diverse but they always return a status call. Below you have a summary on what these codes mean and some tips that can help you troubleshooting them: HTTP Status Code Description Resolution 200 OK No error handling necessary 206 Partial Content Expected status code when paginating the results. No error handling necessary 400 BAD REQUEST Request incorrectly formulated 401 UNAUTHORISED/FORBIDDEN You do not have permissions over the object you are trying to access. / The authorised user is not permitted to make the given request. 404 NOT FOUND The object/resource you are trying to access does not exist. 500 INTERNAL SERVER ERROR This is a server-side error, try later. If the issue persists, contact the Heldpesk. Querying Querying by Object In the below documentation, worked examples can be found on how to use the API, to query about each unique EGA object. https://metadata.ega-archive.org/analyses/{id} https://metadata.ega-archive.org/dacs/{id} https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets/{id} https://metadata.ega-archive.org/runs/{id} https://metadata.ega-archive.org/samples/{id} https://metadata.ega-archive.org/studies/{id} Worked example for the EGA data access committee(DAC) EGAC00001000514 https://metadata.ega-archive.org/dacs/EGAC00001000514 Points to notice Please, be advised that all EGA objects can be queried by using the same endpoint. For example: https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets Returns all the datasets registered at the EGA. https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets?limit=5&offset=15 Returns 5 results skipping the initial 15 results. Cross-Querying by Object The EGA REST API Metadata also allows for the crossquerying of public metadata. For example, should I want to query the datasets included in the ICGC DAC: https://metadata.ega-archive.org/dacs/EGAC00001000010/datasets Below, you can find worked examples on how to perform the call to the API. https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets/EGAD00001000645/analyses https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasetsEGAD00001000645/files https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets/EGAD00001000620/runs https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets/EGAD00001000620/samples https://metadata.ega-archive.org/samples/EGAN00001092114/datasets https://metadata.ega-archive.org/files/EGAF00000056146/dacs https://metadata.ega-archive.org/files/EGAF00000056146/datasets https://metadata.ega-archive.org/files/EGAF00000056146/studies There are more endpoints included in this category. Please, find all the possibilities (green tick) in the table below. Table The table displays in a ordered fashion the objects that can be crossreferenced using the metadata API. BY Analysis Dac Dataset Experiment Policy Run Sample Study File Analysis ✔ ✔ Dac ✔ ✔ Dataset ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Experiment ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Policy ✔ Run ✔ ✔ ✔ Sample ✔ ✔* ✔ Study ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔* File ✔ *: These cross queries do not include data from Array-File submissions. Check out the SPEC

  Documentation discovery/metadata/public-metadata-api

• T2D-GENES Consortium: San Antonio Mexican American Family Studies (SAMAFS)

  The Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) Genetic Exploration by Next-generation sequencing in Ethnic Samples (T2D-GENES) Consortium is a collaborative international effort to identify genes influencing susceptibility to type 2 diabetes in multiple ethnic groups using next generation sequencing. To fulfill this objective, T2D-GENES Consortium undertook two large sequencing studies, called T2D-GENES Projects 1 and 2. Project 1 has carried out whole exome sequencing of 12,940 individuals, 6,504 with T2D and 6,436 non-diabetic controls, equally divided among five continental ancestry groups: Europeans, East Asians, South Asians, Hispanic Americans, and African Americans. The goal of Project 1 is to identify all genetic variants in the complete coding regions of the genomes (i.e., whole exome) by sequencing, including rare variants. Project 2 (i.e., SAMAFS substudy 2) is a pedigree-based study designed to identify low frequency or rare variants influencing susceptibility to T2D, using whole genome sequence information from approximately 600 individuals in 20 Mexican American T2D-enriched pedigrees from San Antonio, Texas, augmented with family-based imputation into approximately 440 additional family members. The major objectives of Project 2 are to identify low frequency or rare variants in and around known common variant signals for T2D, as well as to find novel low frequency or rare variants influencing susceptibility to T2D. Both T2D-GENES Projects 1 and 2 involve the San Antonio Mexican American Family Studies (SAMAFS), which are composed of four San Antonio, Texas-based family studies: the San Antonio Family Heart Study (SAFHS), San Antonio Family Diabetes/Gallbladder Study (SAFDGS), Veterans Administration Genetic Epidemiology Study (VAGES), and Family Investigation of Nephropathy and Diabetes - San Antonio (FIND-SA) Component and its extension called the Extended FIND [E-FIND]. The SAFHS and SAFDGS began in 1991 and have followed participants with extensive clinical phenotyping related to T2D for over 20 years. The VAGES was initiated in 1994 and a large battery of T2D-related phenotypic data has been obtained from its participants. The FIND-SA began in 2000, a part of the multicenter FIND study which was designed to identify genetic determinants of diabetic kidney disease; data from its participants related to T2D were used for this project. Non-overlapping subsets of SAMAFS participants are part of the T2D-GENES Projects 1 and 2, henceforth referred to as SAMAFS substudies 1 and 2, respectively. The SAMAFS substudies 1 and 2 are part of one of the five awards funded by NIDDK under a cooperative agreement award mechanism, which is governed by the Steering Committee of the T2D-GENES Consortium. Since Project 1 relies on population based subsets of cases and controls, 491 unrelated participants are drawn from the four SAMAFS as part of the T2D-GENES Project 1 Mexican American sample (i.e., SAMAFS substudy 1). The whole exome sequencing was performed at the Broad Institute. For Project 2, 1048 individuals are drawn from two SAMAFS (SAFHS and SAFDGS), representing 20 large families for substudy 2. The substudy 2 strategy is to sequence approximately 600 individuals at an average of 50x coverage across the entire genome, then impute genome wide genotypes for about 440 additional family members. The 600 sequenced individuals are specifically chosen for their value in imputing sequence information into other family members. By studying large pedigrees, we expect to find multiple individuals carrying each genetic variant, even if this variant is very rare in the population at large. Thus, a pedigree-based approach provides an excellent opportunity for identifying rare novel variants influencing risk of T2D and quantitative variation in T2D-related phenotypes. The whole genome sequencing has been done commercially by Complete Genomics, Inc. (CGI). The available sample of 1,048 includes 5 sequenced individuals who do not belong to any of the 20 large pedigrees. The final family data of 1,043 individuals includes whole genome sequence data for 607 individuals. After quality control, 590 sequenced individuals provide data for family based imputation using Merlin linkage analysis software into approximately 440 additional family members for whom chip based genotypes are available to indicate which parental haplotype is transmitted. The complete SAMAFS data including phenotype, genotype, sequence, other T2D-related trait data utilized for Projects 1 and 2 are available. These data can readily be viewed by clicking on the substudy title shown below or in the box: "Substudies", located on the right hand side of this parent or top study page phs000847.v1.p1, titled T2D-GENES Consortium: San Antonio Mexican American Family Studies (SAMAFS). phs000849 T2D-GENES Project 1: San Antonio Mexican American Family Studies (SAMAFS), Substudy 1: Whole Exome Sequencing phs000462 T2D-GENES Project 2: San Antonio Mexican American Family Studies (SAMAFS), Substudy 2: Whole Genome Sequencing in Pedigrees

  Study phs000847

• Gene Expression and Regulatory Networks in Human Leukocytes - Immunological Variation Consortium

  Profiling of gene expression with microarrays holds great potential for human health, for illuminating disease pathways or providing biomarkers to monitor disease or its resolution. Using high-throughput approaches for genotyping, immunophenotyping and gene expression analysis, the project will examine the basis for the control of gene expression in human immune cells, and how it is influenced by natural genetic variation or aging. In practice, the project will combine several cross-informative approaches: 1) Building on the established sample/data pipelines and robust protocols of the Immunological Genome (ImmGen) project, and on established cohorts of ethnically diverse healthy volunteers at hand, microarray techniques will be used to generate whole-genome expression profiles from purified naive CD4+ lymphocytes and monocytes from 600 healthy volunteers. A dense genetic map will be established for all donors. The results will elucidate how variation in the human genome affects the expression of immune genes, of key importance in understanding gene variants that bring susceptibility to immune or inflammatory disease. Computational analysis of these rich data will allow the reconstruction of regulatory connections between genes, helping to establish general modules and those specific of a given immune cell type. These data will be complemented by an orthogonal data group, generated from a restricted subset of 10 individuals, in which we will profile a larger set of 28 carefully delineated cell populations that exist in human blood. This work will also benefit from powerful interspecies comparison with similar experiments being performed in mice by ImmGen. 2) In addition, RNA from the same set of 28 defined cell populations will be probed with microarrays that explore other aspects of the transcriptome: i) microRNAs and other non-coding RNAs; ii) exon or splice junction arrays that will establish a map of differential splicing in human blood leukocyte. 3) The composition and reactivity of blood cells from the same donors will be established at the time of sample collection using high-throughput flow cytometry, correlating immune phenotypes with gene expression and genetic variation. 4) Genetic variability conditions the baseline levels of gene expression, but also the responsiveness to activating challenges. With samples from the same donors, NanoString technology for transcript counting will be used to analyze the transcriptional response of defined gene sets, representing response signatures of T or dendritic cells, for a fine-grained dissection of responses to different triggers (different bacterial ligands for dendritic cells, different cytokine environment for T cells). In keeping with the resource aspect of this project, all data and interpretations will be made publicly available rapidly upon curation, allowing public querying and browsing of the data, by using and evolving the existing web architectures of the ImmGen project, of the Broad Institute, and of international repositories. RELEVANCE: Exploration with DNA chips of the genome's expression microarrays holds great potential for human health, to better understand disease and to serve as diagnostic tools. Using a combination of high-throughput genomic techniques and computational biology, we will perform a broad exploration of gene expression in human blood cells across groups of African-American, Asian and European ancestry, asking how these profiles are affected by genetic variation or by age. These results will provide an invaluable reference benchmark for the interpretation of genetic and immunological studies. Additionally, over 90% of genetic variants associated with complex human traits map to non-coding regions, but little is understood about how they modulate gene regulation in health and disease. One possible mechanism is that genetic variants affect the activity of one or more cis-regulatory elements leading to gene expression variation in specific cell types. To identify such cases, in a second study we analyzed ATAC-seq and RNA-seq profiles from stimulated primary CD4+ T cells in up to 105 healthy donors. We found regions of accessible chromatin (ATAC-peaks) are co-accessible at kilobase and megabase resolution. 15% of genetic variants located within ATAC-peaks affected the accessibility of the corresponding peak (ATAC-QTLs). ATAC-QTLs have the largest effects on co-accessible peaks, are associated with gene expression, and are enriched for autoimmune disease variants. Our results provide insights into how natural genetic variants modulate cis-regulatory elements, in isolation or in concert, to influence gene expression. In another study we analyzed RNA-seq profiles from primary CD4+ T cells of two healthy donors at six time points from 0 to 72 hours after stimulation with bead-bound antibodies against CD3 and CD28.

  Study phs000815

• Virtual Growing Child 5-Dimensional Functional Models for Treating Respiratory Anomalies (dMRI-VGC)

  Objectives We are sharing a database of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) scans of normal children, which can serve as a reference standard to quantify regional respiratory abnormalities in young patients with various respiratory conditions and facilitate treatment planning and response assessment. The database can also be useful to advance future AI-based research on image-based object segmentation and analysis. Background In pediatric patients with respiratory abnormalities, it is important to understand the alterations in regional dynamics of the lungs and other thoracoabdominal components, which in turn requires a quantitative understanding of what is considered as normal in healthy children. Currently, such a normative database of regional respiratory structure and function in healthy children does not exist. Participants 200 normal children (ages 6-18 years) participated in our research study related to this dataset. DesignThe shared open-source normative database is from our ongoing virtual growing child (VGC) project, which includes 4D dMRI images representing one breathing cycle for each normal child and also segmentations of 10 objects at end expiration (EE) and end inspiration (EI) phases of the respiratory cycle in the 4D image. The lung volumes at EE and EI as well as the excursion volumes of chest wall and diaphragm from EE to EI, left and right sides separately, are also reported. The database has thus 4,000 3D segmentations from 200 normal children in total. The database is unique and provides dMRI images, object segmentations, and quantitative regional respiratory measurement parameters of volumes for normal children. All dMRI scans are acquired from normal children during free-breathing. The dMRI acquisition protocol was as follows: 3T MRI scanner (Verio, Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), true-FISP bright-blood sequence, TR=3.82 ms, TE=1.91 ms, voxel size ~1×1×6 mm3, 320×320 matrix, bandwidth 258 Hz, and flip angle 76o. With recent advances, for each sagittal location across the thorax and abdomen, we acquired 40 2D slices over several tidal breathing cycles at ~480 ms/slice. On average, 35 sagittal locations are imaged, yielding a total of ~1400 2D MRI slices, with a resulting total scan time of 11-13 minutes for any particular study participant.The collected dMRI scan data then went through the procedure of 4D image construction, image processing, object segmentation, and volumetric measurements from segmentations. 4D image construction: For the acquired dMRI scans, we utilized an automated 4D image construction approach to form one 4D image over one breathing cycle (consisting of typically 5-8 respiratory phases) from each acquired dMRI scan to represent the whole dynamic thoraco-abdominal body region. The algorithm selects 175-280 slices (35 sagittal locations × 5-8 respiratory phases) from the 1400 acquired slices in an optimal manner using an optical flux method. Image processing: Intensity standardization is performed on every time point/3D volume of the 4D image so that image values have the same tissue-specific meaning across all subjects. Object segmentation: For each subject, there are 10 objects segmented at both EE and EI time points in this database. They include the thoracoabdominal skin outer boundary, left and right lungs, liver, spleen, left and right kidneys, diaphragm, and left and right hemi-diaphragms. All dMRI scans utilize large field of view images, which include the full thorax and abdomen to the inferior aspect of the kidneys in the sagittal plane. We used a pretrained U-Net based deep learning network to first segment all objects, and then all auto-segmentation results were visually checked and manually refined as needed, under the supervision of a radiologist with over 25 years of expertise in MRI and thoracoabdominal radiology. Manual segmentations have been performed for all objects in all datasets. Volumetric measurements based on object segmentations for lung volumes (left and right separately) at EE and EI, as well as for chest wall and diaphragm excursion volumes (left and right separately) are reported. ConclusionsThe provided database is unique and provides dMRI images, object segmentations, and quantitative regional respiratory measurement parameters of volumes for normal children. The database has 4,000 3D segmentations from 200 normal children, which to our knowledge is the largest and only such dMRI dataset to date. All images and object segmentations are saved in DICOM. All DICOM files (176,574 in total) have been anonymized, and PHI has been removed. The database can be used as a reference standard to quantify regional respiratory abnormalities in young patients with various respiratory conditions and facilitate treatment planning and response assessment. The large amount of object segmentations can potentially benefit AI-based research on image-based object segmentation and analysis.

  Study phs004002

• Transdisciplinary Research Into Cancer of the Lung (TRICL) - Exome Plus Targeted Sequencing

  The study was conducted under the auspices of the Transdisciplinary Research In Cancer of the Lung (TRICL) Research Team, which is a part of the Genetic Associations and MEchanisms in ONcology (GAME-ON) consortium, and associated with the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO). Ethics All participants provided written informed consent. All studies were reviewed and approved by institutional ethics review committees at the involved institutions. Sequencing data are derived from four sub-studies. The sub-studies that contributed include Harvard, Liverpool, Toronto, and IARC. The IARC and Toronto studies are described above. A description of the Harvard and Liverpool studies is provided below. Liverpool Lung Project: The Liverpool Lung Project (LLP)1 is a case control and cohort study, which has over 11,500 individuals, with detailed epidemiological, clinical and outcome data with associated specimens (i.e. tumour tissue, blood, plasma, sputum, bronchial lavage, EBUS and oral brushings). The participants have completed a detailed lifestyle questionnaire and updated data on clinical outcome and hospital events are collected through the Office of National Statistics, Cancer Registry and from Health Episode Statistics. The project is registered on the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) lung cancer portfolio and has all the required ethical approvals and sponsorship arrangements in place. The LLP has detailed standard operating procedures (SOP) for all aspects of the recruitment, data, specimen collection as well as the data storage. The LLP Cohort study has 8,224 participants with blood and 7,761 with plasma samples. The LLP case-control samples have been incorporated into in a large number of international GWAS and molecular studies 2,3, methylation 4-7, microRNA 8and next generation studies 9-11, resulting in high ranking publications, as well as forming the basis for the LLP risk prediction model 12-14 which has been utilised in the UK lung cancer screening trial (UKLS) 15-17 Patient and control DNAs were derived from EDTA-venous blood samples. Harvard Samples. David Christiani at the Harvard University School of Public Health has been directing research studies to investigate etiological factors influencing lung cancer development since 1983 and has amassed a collection of 2000 controls and 5055 lung cancer cases. He has been actively collecting and storing snap frozen tumor samples since 1992. Around 1500 tumor samples have been collected and the average wet tumor yield is about 30 grams of tumor, of which 631 cases have completely annotated clinical and survival information. Pathology confirmation is provided by two pathologists. At the time of surgery, a minimum of 30 grams of wet lung tumor tissue and 30 grams of non-involved tissue from the same lobe is sectioned, flash frozen and sent to Dr. Christiani's lab for logging and storage. A blood sample for DNA and serum is collected. A structured interview by trained research staff is conducted on each case, and clinical outcomes and treatments is extracted and entered into the molecular epidemiology data base at Harvard. Fresh frozen samples have been collected from 1451 lung cancer and are available for study. Samples from this collaborative study have played key roles in major studies, including the initial finding describing EGFR mutations in lung cancer 22. Participants in this study are patients, > 18 years of age, with newly diagnosed histologically confirmed lung cancer. Samples that are included in the analysis have the following histologies: Adenocarcinoma: 8140/3, 8250/3, 8260/3, 8310/3, 8480/3 8560/3; LCC: 8012/3, 8031/3; squamous carcinoma: 8070/3, 8071/3, 8072/3, 8074/3; and other NSCLC: 8010/3, 8020/3, 8021/3, 8032/3, 8230/3. The Toronto Study: The Toronto study was conducted in the Great Toronto Area between 1997 and 2014. Cases were recruited at the hospitals in the network of University of Toronto and Lunenfeld- Tanenbaum Research Institute. At the time of recruitment in the clinical setting, provisional diagnoses of lung carcinoma were first assigned based on clinical criteria. Diagnoses for all cases included were histologically confirmed by the reference pathologist who is a specialist in pulmonary pathology, based on review of pathology reports from surgery, biopsy or cytology samples in 100% of cases. Diagnostic classification was done initially according to ICD-9, ICD-10, and ICD for oncology-2, and subsequently converted to ICD-O-3. Tumors were grouped into the major categories included in this analysis according to primary cancer type based on the ICD-3 definitions. Controls were randomly selected from individual visiting family medicine clinics and Ministry of Finance Municipal Tax Tapes. All subjects were interviewed using a standard questionnaire and information on lifestyle risk factors, occupational history, medical and family history was collected. Blood samples were collected from more than 85% of the subjects. IARC: The IARC data are derived from case-control studies conducted in Russia and include samples that have available tissue samples. Patient and control DNAs were derived from EDTA-venous blood samples. The lung cancer patients were classified according to ICD-O-3; SQ: 8070/3, 8071/3, 8072/3, 8074/3; AD: 8140/3, 8250/3, 8260/3, 8310/3, 8480/3, 8560/3, 8251/3, 8490/3, 8570/3, 8574/3; with tumous with overlapping histologies classified as mixed. The Lung Cancer Transdisciplinary Research Cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP sub-studies. To view genotypes, other molecular data, and derived variables collected in these sub-studies, please click on the following sub-studies below or in the "Sub-studies" section of this top-level study page phs000876 Lung Cancer Transdisciplinary Research Cohort. phs000877 Meta Analysis phs000878 CIDR Lung Cancer phs001681 Affy Axiom Array

  Study phs000876

• Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD - Imaging)

  Available DataAction to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD-Imaging), provides access to ECG signals data from the ACCORD clinical trial. The clinical phenotyping and outcomes data from the trial are associated with ACCORD-BioLINCC, phs003551.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine if intensive glycemic control, multiple lipid management and intensive blood pressure control could prevent major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Secondary hypotheses included treatment differences in other cardiovascular outcomes, total mortality, microvascular outcomes, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness.BackgroundGlycemia Trial:Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus die of cardiovascular disease (CVD) at rates two to four times higher than non-diabetic populations of similar demographic characteristics. They also experience increased rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke. With the growing prevalence of obesity in the United States, CVD associated with type 2 diabetes is expected to become an even greater public health challenge in the coming decades than it is now. Expected increases in event rates will be associated with a concomitant rise in suffering and resource utilization.The ACCORD study investigated whether intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels would reduce cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk factors when compared to standard therapy (HbA1c between 7.0% and 7.9%). A separate analysis investigated whether reduction of blood glucose concentration decreases the rate of microvascular complications in these patients.Lipid Therapy Trial:Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have an increased incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease attributable, in part, to associated risk factors such as dyslipidemia. This is characterized by elevated plasma triglyceride levels, low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and small, dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles. The ACCORD Lipid Therapy trial was designed to test the effect of a therapeutic strategy that uses a fibrate to raise HDL-C and lower triglyceride levels and uses a statin for treatment of LDL-C reduce the rate of CVD events compared to a strategy that only uses a statin for treatment of LDL-C on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes that were at high risk for cardiovascular disease.Blood Pressure Trial:Diabetes mellitus increases the risk of cardiovascular disease at every level of systolic blood pressure. Because cardiovascular risk in patients with diabetes is graded and continuous across the entire range of levels of systolic blood pressure, even at prehypertensive levels, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) recommended beginning drug treatment in patients with diabetes who have systolic blood pressures of 130 mm Hg or higher, with a treatment goal of reducing systolic blood pressure to below 130 mm Hg. There is, however, a paucity of evidence from randomized clinical trials to support these recommendations. The ACCORD Blood Pressure trial tested the effect of a target systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg on major cardiovascular events among high-risk persons with type 2 diabetes compared to a strategy that targeted a SBP of EYE Substudy:Diabetic retinopathy, an important microvascular complication of diabetes, is a leading cause of blindness in the United States. Randomized, controlled clinical trials in cohorts of patients with type 1 diabetes and those with type 2 diabetes have shown the beneficial effects of intensive glycemic control and intensive treatment of elevated blood pressure on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Elevated serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels have been implicated, in observational studies and small trials, as additional risk factors for the development of diabetic retinopathy and visual loss. The ACCORD EYE Substudy evaluated the effects of the ACCORD medical strategies on the progression of diabetic retinopathy in a subgroup of trial patients.MIND Substudy:Studies suggest that older persons with type 2 diabetes have at least twice the likelihood of developing late-life cognitive impairment or dementia compared to those without. The mechanisms underlying these cognitive disorders are increasingly thought to reflect a mixed pathology pattern with contributions from vascular, neurodegenerative and neurovascular processes. Pathophysiological mechanisms that have been described include inflammation, oxidative stress, energy imbalance, protein misfolding, glucocorticoid-mediated effects and differences in genetic susceptibilities. The ACCORD MIND substudy took as a premise that early intervention with the ACCORD therapeutic strategies to improve glycemic control could mitigate the adverse effects of type 2 diabetes on the brain.Subjects10,251 patients with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c concentrations of 7.5% or more participated in the trial. Of these patients, 5518 were assigned to the lipid therapy arm and 4733 to the blood pressure arm. EYE Substudy:A subgroup of 2856 patients was evaluated for the effects of the ACCORD interventions at 4 years on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Patients who, at baseline, had a history of proliferative diabetic retinopathy that had been treated with laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy were excluded.MIND Substudy:A subgroup of 2977 patients was evaluated for cognitive function and brain volume. The ACCORD MIND substudy excluded patients aged DesignPatients were randomly assigned to undergo either intensive glycemic control (targeting a glycated hemoglobin level EYE Substudy:EYE Substudy patients were evaluated at two standardized and comprehensive eye examinations for the effects of the ACCORD interventions at 4 years on the progression of diabetic retinopathy by 3 or more steps on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Severity Scale (as assessed from seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs, with 17 possible steps and a higher number of steps indicating greater severity) or the development of diabetic retinopathy necessitating laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy.MIND Substudy:The cognitive primary outcome, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) score, was assessed at baseline, 20 and 40 months. Total brain volume (TBV), the primary brain structure outcome, was assessed with MRI at baseline and 40 months in a sub-set of 632 patients. All patients with follow-up data were included in the primary analyses.ConclusionsGlycemia Trial:As compared with standard therapy, the use of intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin levels for 3.5 years increased mortality and did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events. (NEJM. 2008; 358(24): 2545-59).Microvascular Outcomes of the Glycemia Trial:Intensive therapy did not reduce the risk of advanced measures of microvascular outcomes, but delayed the onset of albuminuria and some measures of eye complications and neuropathy. Microvascular benefits of intensive therapy should be weighed against the risk of increased total and cardiovascular disease-related mortality, increased weight gain, and higher risk for severe hypoglycemia. (Lancet. 2010; 376(9739): 419-30)Lipid Therapy Trial:The combination of fenofibrate and simvastatin did not reduce the rate of fatal cardiovascular events, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, as compared with simvastatin alone. These results do not support the routine use of combination therapy with fenofibrate and simvastatin to reduce cardiovascular risk in the majority of high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes (NEJM. 2010; 362(17): 1563–1574).Blood Pressure Trial:In patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, did not reduce the rate of a composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events (NEJM. 2010; 362: 1575-1585).EYE Substudy:Intensive glycemic control and intensive combination treatment of dyslipidemia, but not intensive blood-pressure control, reduced the rate of progression of diabetic retinopathy (NEJM. 2010; 363: 233-244).MIND Substudy:Although significant differences in TBV favored the intensive therapy, cognitive outcomes were not different. Combined with the unfavorable effects on other ACCORD outcomes, MIND findings do not support using intensive therapy to reduce the adverse effects of diabetes on the brain in patients similar to MIND patients (Lancet Neurol. 2011; 10(11): 969–977).

  Study phs003562

• Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS)

  Background and Rationale for the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) Over the last several decades, advances in treatments for childhood and adolescent cancer have substantially improved survival following diagnosis. These improvements gave rise to the responsibility for investigating long-term treatment-associated morbidity and mortality. Early efforts to describe late effects were largely conducted through single-institution and limited consortia studies. However, by the mid-1980s, it became increasingly clear that these approaches had inherent limitations, including small sample size, convenience sampling, incompletely characterized populations, and limited length of follow-up. To overcome these limitations, the CCSS was proposed and funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as a U01 grant in 1994. Subsequently, the strengths of the CCSS, including an efficient and extensive infrastructure, plus expanding database and biorepository, were recognized and appreciated. Thus, in consultation with the NCI, the CCSS was converted to a U24 (resource grant) funding mechanism to serve the scientific community in 2000. The overarching goal of the CCSS resource is to increase the conduct of innovative and high impact research related to pediatric cancer survivorship. CCSS has been used extensively by researchers from a wide range of disciplines to address a broad spectrum of topics. Strengths of the resource include its large size, comprehensive annotation of treatment exposures, ongoing longitudinal follow-up with characterization of a wide array of participant characteristics and outcomes, and an established biorepository. Design of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) is a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary collaborative research resource comprised of a retrospective hospital-based cohort of survivors of childhood cancer and a comparison sibling cohort. Eligible survivors from 31 participating institutions were diagnosed between 1970 and 1999, prior to age 21 years, with selected common pediatric cancers (leukemia, central nervous system tumors, Hodgkin lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, kidney tumors, neuroblastoma, soft tissue sarcoma, or bone tumors). All patients who survived five years from the date of diagnosis were eligible, regardless of disease or treatment status. The baseline questionnaire was completed by 24,368 survivors and 5,039 siblings recruited to serve as a comparison group. To date, participants have completed three general follow-up surveys, as well as a number of specialized surveys on specific topics (e.g. health care, insurance, screening practices, men's and women's health issues, adolescent health, sleep and fatigue). In addition, biological samples (buccal cells, saliva and/or blood) have been collected for over 11,000 participants. Full descriptions of the design and characteristics of the CCSS have been previously published (Robison et al; Leisenring et al.), and available data and samples are described at https://ccss.stjude.org/develop-a-study/gwas-data-resource.html. Treatment Data in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study A key feature of CCSS is the availability of detailed treatment data, which were collected by abstraction of medical records for each individual member of the cohort. Detailed abstraction included dates of therapy, protocol information, and specific details regarding surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Quantitative dose details were collected for 22 specific chemotherapeutic agents, including alkylating agents, anthracyclines, platinum compounds and epipodophyllotoxins. In addition to individual agent doses, algorithms have been created to calculate cumulative doses of all drugs in a specific class, such as anthracyclines (doxorubicin, daunomycin and idarubicin) or platinum agents (cisplatinum and carboplatinum). Data abstracted for surgeries included dates and both the names and corresponding International Classification of Diseases (9th revision) code. For radiation treatment data, all relevant records were sent to the Radiation Physics Center at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center for detailed abstraction and dosimetry. Initial body region dosimetry was performed for all participants, followed by more detailed dosimetry as needed for specific studies. Genomics Data in the Childhood Cancer Survivor StudyThe NCI's Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and CCSS investigators collaborated to conduct genomics studies (SNP array genotyping and whole exome sequencing) using samples from the CCSS Biorepository. Studies included all cohort participants with available DNA regardless of sex or ancestry when the genomics studies were initiated. Phenotype Data in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study Vital status and cause of death for both participants and non-participants is determined via linkage with the National Death Index (NDI). Identification of subsequent neoplasms is based on self-report, followed by validation using medical records, or via NDI. A wide array of additional health outcomes have been ascertained via a comprehensive set of questions on the CCSS questionnaires, covering potential adverse events across a range of organ systems (hearing/vision/speech, urinary, hormonal, heart and circulatory, respiratory, digestive, brain and nervous systems). In addition to health outcomes, longitudinal data have been collected on demographics, health behaviors, family history, screening practices, insurance status, and a range of psychosocial and neurocognitive factors. A full listing of available variables and copies of the CCSS questionnaires are available at http://ccss.stjude.org. Research Areas in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study Extensive use by the research community has resulted in over 265 published manuscripts on a wide range of topics, including associations between treatment factors and mortality, subsequent neoplasms, chronic health conditions, cardiac events, neurocognitive sequelae, psychosocial factors, fertility, and health status. Additional topics have included health behaviors, screening practices, health care access and utilization, statistical and exposure assessment methodology, and development of risk prediction models. A full listing of published manuscripts using CCSS data is available on the CCSS website at https://ccss.stjude.org/published-research/publications.html. The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study as a Resource for Investigators The CCSS is an NCI-funded resource (U24 CA55727) to promote and facilitate research among long-term survivors of cancer diagnosed during childhood and adolescence. Interested investigators are encouraged to develop research ideas and propose projects within CCSS, whether or not they are from a participating CCSS institution. The CCSS is now accepting proposals to collaborate with CCSS and NCI investigators in the use of genomics data and corresponding outcomes-related data to address innovative research questions relating to potential genetic contributions to risk for treatment-related outcomes. Any researcher, or group of researchers, qualified to conduct genetic research can submit a proposal. There are no restrictions relative to country, institution, or prior involvement in CCSS. A full description of the process for developing a proposal for genetic research in CCSS can be found at https://ccss.stjude.org/develop-a-study/gwas-data-resource.html, along with listings of approved proposals.

  Study phs001327

• 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