16285 results for "free fc coins and points Visit Buyfc26coins.com Alennukset toistuvista ostoista..p4v2"

in 22.82 milliseconds.

• Best Practices for DACs

  Best Practices Data access committees (DACs) are institutional safeguards responsible for ensuring a balance between data protection and accessibility. However, there are no procedural standards that apply across DACs, which can lead to inconsistencies in their reviews and compromise their quality and effectiveness. Standardising DAC processes can foster trust and mutual recognition, paving the way for greater coordination, collaboration, and delegation between DACs and other oversight bodies to improve the efficiency of data access without sacrificing protection. To provide guidance, the following are suggestions for actions a DAC might take upon receiving a data access request: Aim to respond to all initial requests in less than 2 weeks. Failure to do so may result in follow-up emails from the EGA, journals, and ultimately dataset withdrawal. First, check that the data/EGAD number is consistent with your data submission. In other words, ensure that the requester has contacted the correct DAC. Verify that the user will be using the data within the terms of consent by asking them to sign up to the terms within the DAA. Ensure that data users who are granted access to the data comply with the terms of a Data Access Agreement (DAA) and to use the data only in approved ways. Look for an institutional email address for the requester. Search for evidence that the requester is "appropriately qualified/bona fide" for using the data, for example on PubMed, Research Gate, LinkedIn, etc. Confirm that the affiliated organisation is real and that the requester still works there. Inquire with the requester about who should have accounts created at the EGA under the terms of the agreement. If a negative decision is made, promptly communicate it to the requester and support it with the terms of the Data Access Policy that the requester has not met or cannot meet. Keep the information in the DAC up to date. If you leave your institution and are unable to manage data access requests on their behalf, you should add your replacement as a new contact in the DAC. Assist with data access requests for any further questions related to your data. The EGA can only check information that has been deposited in the repository. If the user has a specific question that the EGA cannot answer, we will redirect the user to the DAC. All the EGA studies and datasets referenced in a publication under your DAC must be publicly searchable on the EGA website before the paper is released. If possible, describe the permitted purposes for subsequent research projects, including associated limits and conditions, for all resources hosted in a repository using a common ontology, such as the GA4GH Data Use Ontology (DUO). It is considered best practice to try and release data only to those with an institutional email address. This gives reassurance to the EGA, research participants, and the general public that an appropriate individual is accessing and using the data. 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.

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/best-practices

• Bulk-RNA Sequencing of high-grade pancreatic and non-pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

  Therapeutic decisions in oncology depend on a precise pathological classification of individual neoplasms. Recent years have seen an intensification of research activities aimed at the extraction of clinically relevant information from patient-derived 'omics' data based on Machine-Learning models. However, a comprehensive training of Machine-Learning models requires sufficiently large numbers of training samples, which are usually not available for rare cancer types. The problem is worsened when individual tissues segregate into different cancer subtypes, as their discrimination would require even more training samples. Methods: Here, we report on a new data-augmentation technique to support the training of Machine-Learning models on ‘omics’ data from pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (panNEN). PanNENs display all properties described above: Only about 2-3% of all pancreatic neoplasms are neuroendocrine and they fall into different subtypes with distinctly different prognosis, which makes the precise classification of such samples both difficult and important for therapy decisions. The approach reconstructs a given transcriptome based on healthy pancreatic cell type signatures and creates a Machine-Learning model that integrates the observed reconstruction error and predicted cell type proportions as features. Results: A benchmark of the deconvolution model predictions with the ground-truth found that the model could efficiently predict the sample grading, disease-related patient survival time, and differentiate between different subtypes in four panNEN and one mixed panNEN and non-pancreatic NENs dataset. We compared the predictive performance of the deconvolution-trained model to that of a model trained directly on the transcriptomic data, under inclusion of the Ki-67 classification gold standard biomarker, and found the performances to be comparable. Conclusion: Our approach serves as a data-augmentation technique to facilitate the training of Machine Learning models for rare cancer types via utilization of data from healthy origin. Additionally, the deconvolution results were clinically interpretable and further research can render the deconvolution approach an effective complementary asset for the clinical classification of neoplasms.

  Study EGAS00001004861

• Myeloma Research Laboratory, University of Adelaide and South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute

  Dac EGAC00001000849

• Genomics-based characterization and personalized treatment in pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma

  Study EGAS00001007294

• DAC Composition and functional state of T and NK cells in Extramedullary Mulitiple myeloma

  Dac EGAC50000000599

• National Cancer Institute (NCI) Genome Wide Association Study (GWAS) of Lung Cancer in Never Smokers

  A genomewide study of lung cancer in never smokers Abstract and specific aims In the United States, lung cancer incidence and mortality rates have been steadily declining over the past decade, following decline in the prevalence of tobacco smoking. However, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death, killing more patients than breast, colon, and prostate cancers combined. Although tobacco smoke is the predominant risk factor for development of lung cancer, some patients develop the disease without a history of tobacco smoking. About 10 - 15% of all lung cancers occur in lilfetime never smokers. This figure will increase as the proportion of never smokers increases in the population. Even at present rates, lung cancer in never smokers, if considered a separate disease, is 6th to 8th top cause of cancer death. The growing number of never smokers in the USA and other countries emphasizes the importance of understanding the epidemiology and biology underlying lung cancer in this group. Genetic polymorphisms associated with the risk of lung cancer in never smokers are expected to overlap with those associated with the risk of lung cancer in ever smokers only partially. Epidemiological, molecular and clinical data suggest that molecular mechanisms of LC may differ in smokers and non-smokers, implying that lung cancer in never smokers is a different disease compared to the lung cancer in smokers. One can expect that there should be stronger genetic component in the control lung cancer in never smokers because effects of the genetic factors in never smokers are unmasked by the lack of tobacco smoke exposure. The genetic epidemiology of lung cancer in never smokers has not been well explored, largely because of difficulties in accruing the needed sample size for association studies. We propose a multicenter (total 14 sites from the US and Europe) genomewide association study of lung cancer in never smokers with the following specific aims: Aim 1: To identify candidate SNPs influencing risk for lung cancer in never smokers using Discovery sample. In the Discovery phase we will genotype 1256 Caucasian cases and 1365 age- and gender-matched never smoker controls using the Illumina Human660W-Quad platform. In addition, we will include in the analysis 284 cases and 175 matched controls already genotyped on the 610Quad platform. In this phase we will only include the study sites that have collected blood specimens (MDACC, Mayo Clinic, Karmanos Cancer Institute, The University of Liverpool Cancer research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research in Sutton, and Lunenfeld Research Institute in Toronto, Canada). All the samples will be sent to the independent lab for genotyping, to reduce site-specific technical artifacts. The final sample will consist of 1540 cases and 1540 controls matched by study site. Aim 2: To perform the second phase (validation) analysis of significant SNPs identified in aim 1 using an independent set of cases and controls. SNPs associated with risk at the significance level of 0.01 or below in the discovery set will be included in the replication phase. The proposed threshold guarantees an adequate power to retain SNPs with the typical effect size of 1.3. We plan to carry 6000-7000 SNPs for validation. The independent replication set will include 800 cases and 800 controls, mostly from sites that collected tissue (Mayo Clinic, Karmanos Cancer Institute, UT Southwestern) or buccal specimens (UCLA), but also blood samples (Imperial College London, University of Pennsylvana, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, National Research Center for Environment and Health, Neuherberg, Carmel Medical Center, Haifa). We will then perform a joint analysis to test the significance of the SNPs identified in the first stage using a stringent critical p-value of 10-7. There will be 2340 cases and 2340 controls in the joint set. Based on our experience with GWAS in smokers and assuming that genetic component in lung cancer risk in never smokers can be higher than genetic component in smokers, we expect to identify about 5-10 candidate regions associated with lung cancer risk in never smokers. Aim 3: To identify and explore pathways associated with the risk of lung cancer in never smokers. Results of the number of studies on the molecular mechanisms and drug response suggest that lung cancer in never smokers is a different disease and different pathways will be associated with lung cancer risk in non-smokers and smokers. To identify pathways and molecular functions associated with lung cancer risk in never smokers we will apply Ingenuity and DAVID bioinformatics tools. We will use at least 300 top candidate genes identified in joint and discovery analysis. The reason why we select rather large number of candidate genes for functional annotation is two-fold: 1. Both algorithms are looking for enrichment of pathways and function by most significant genes and they produce statistically robust results only when number of genes is relatively high. 2. Despite the fact that this study will be largest possible for never smokers we still are underpowered to detect SNPs with relatively small effect size. But though those SNPs will not reach genome wide level of significance they will tend to be on the top of the list. In other words genes from the gray zone (significant on individual level and non-significant for genome wide level) are expected to be enriched by true discoveries. True discoveries are likely to be associated with limited number of pathways / functions while false positives are expected to be uniformly distributed across functions and pathways. Therefore significant clustering of the gene to a given function will suggest that that those genes are true discoveries. This is the first GWAS aiming at identifying the genetic control of susceptibility to lung cancer in Caucasian never smokers. We will combine the available resources from the multiple sites to achieve the sample size sufficient for this study. The study will identify genetic architecture of the predisposition to the lung cancer in never smokers.

  Study phs000634

• Cancer Genome Project Exome Sequencing

  Agilent whole exome hybridisation capture was performed on genomic DNA derived from cancer and matched normal DNA from the same patients. Next Generation sequencing performed on the resulting exome libraries and mapped to build 37 of the human reference genome to facilitate the identification of novel cancer genes. Now we aim to re find and validate the findings of those exome libraries using bespoke pulldown methods and sequencing the products.

  Dataset EGAD00001000289

• InterPregGen-GWAS-UZB-1

  GWAS genotype data for maternal and fetal (baby) cases of preeclampsia and controls from Uzbekistan. This dataset is a component of the InterPregGen FP7 project. DNA samples for this component were collected by InterPregGen Consortium members in Tashkent, Uzbekistan at the Institute of Immunology, Uzbek Academy of Sciences and at the Republic Specialized Scientific Practical Medical Centre of Obstetrics and Gynecology

  Dataset EGAD00010001918

• CITE-seq AdaptNK

  CITEseq was performed as outlined in Biolegend ‘TotalSeqTM-A Antibodies and Cell Hashing with 10x Single Cell 3' Reagent Kit v3 3.1 Protocol’ with minor modifications, using Biolegend oligo-conjugated antibodies and streptavidin TotalSeq reagents. Briefly, ADAPT-NK cells were stained with CD56-biotin mAb (Miltenyi, clone REA196), followed by TotalSeq antibodies and streptavidin-PE and Live/Dead Aqua (Invitrogen). Cells were subsequently sorted for viable CD56+ cells by flow cytometry.

  Dataset EGAD50000000329

• PBMC scRNA-seq data using 10X Genomics platform

  Matrices of counts from single-cell RNA-seq data and single-cell CITE-seq data collected from 16 patients enrolled in GO30103 trial, and the cell level annotation. Specifically, PBMCs at C1D1, C1D15 (2 weeks after treatment), C2D1 (3 weeks after treatment) and C4D1 (9 weeks after treatment) were collected and subject to 10x Genomics protocol. Associated metadata also included.

  Dataset EGAD50000000370