12204 results for "selling my fc coins Visit Buyfc26coins.com for latest FC 26 coins news..XVJT"

in 14.01 milliseconds.

• 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. How can I add my dataset to the cBioPortal instance? In order to link your data to the cBioPortal, you must register it as a normal dataset in the Submitter Portal. For more information, please refer to the cBioPortal documentation. 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

• Pooled Genome-Wide Analysis of Kidney Cancer Risk (KIDRISK)

  Incidence rates of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are rising and the latest estimates show that it accounts for over 300,000 cases and 120,000 deaths worldwide each year. Mechanisms underlying RCC occurrence are not fully understood and a large part of the disease heritability remains unexplained. The study aimed at augmenting the size of available RCC genome-wide association studies to increase the statistical power to detect genetic variants associated with the disease. The study includes genome-wide genotyping data from RCC cases (n=2,781) and controls (n=2,526) recruited in Western Europe, Central and Eastern Europe, and Australia.

  Study phs001271

• Whole_Genome_sequencing_of_individuals_from_Carlantino__Italy

  This study includes whole-genome sequencing data (at 4x depth) of 100 individuals from an Italian genetic isolate population (Carlantino, abbreviated CARL) of the Italian Network of Genetic Isolates (INGI). The INGI-CARL_SEQ project aims to combine available extensive genetic and phenotypic data to the latest high-throughput genome sequencing technology and ad hoc statistical analysis to identify new rare genetic variants underlying complex traits.

  Study EGAS00001000460

• Evolutionary landscape of clonal hematopoiesis in 3359 individuals from the general population

  This project contains longitudinal data for processed somatic variant calls and data on core phenotypic variables for 3359 community-based individuals ≥60 years, a sub-cohort of the population-based Lifelines cohort (167,729 participants). Cases with peripheral blood count abnormalities and population-based controls were included. Next-generation sequencing data were generated with a median time period of 43 months between baseline and follow-up visit. For 327 individuals a third visit sample was included. Error-corrected sequencing was performed using single-molecule tagged molecular inversion probes targeting 27 myeloid and lymphoid driver genes. The threshold for variant calling was set at ≥1% VAF and ≥10 consensus variant reads. Details on sample selection, sequencing technique, variant calling procedures and data curation are described (van Zeventer et al. 2023).

  Study EGAS00001007087

• NHLBI Family Heart Study (FamHS-Visit1 and FamHS-Visit2)

  The Family Heart Study (FamHS) was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). It was begun in 1992 with the ascertainment of 1,200 families, half randomly sampled, and half selected because of an excess of coronary heart disease (CHD) or risk factor abnormalities as compared with age- and sex-specific population rates (Higgins et al. 1996). The families, with approximately 6,000 individuals, were sampled on the basis of information on probands from four population-based parent studies: the Framingham Heart Study, the Utah Family Tree Study, and two Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) centers (Minneapolis, and Forsyth County, NC). A broad range of phenotypes were assessed at a clinic examination in broad domains of CHD, atherosclerosis, cardiac and vascular function, inflammation and hemostasis, lipids and lipoproteins, blood pressure, diabetes and insulin resistance, pulmonary function, and anthropometry (FamHS Visit 1). Approximately 8 years later, study participants belonging to the largest pedigrees were invited for a second clinical exam (FamHS Visit 2). A total of 2,756 Caucasian subjects in 508 extended families were examined. A two-phase design was adopted for the genome wide association (GWA) study. In phase-1, 1007 subjects were chosen, equally distributed between the upper and lower quartile of age- and sex-adjusted values for coronary artery calcification, assessed by CT scan in Visit 2. These subjects were chosen to be largely unrelated; 34% of the subjects were from unique families, while 200 other subjects had 1 or more siblings selected into the sample, yielding a sample of 465 unrelated subjects. The remaining family members (N=1749) were genotyped in the phase-2 for replication of the top hits from the phase-1. The results presented here represent those for the analysis of the phase-1 case-control sample for variables assessed in FamHS Visit 1 (from 1992 to 1995) and for the variables assessed in FamHS Visit 2 (from 2002 to 2003). All subjects were typed on the Illumina HumMap 550 chip (Phase 1 genotype). Of these, 33 (3.3%) were excluded due to technical errors, call rates below 98%, and discrepancies between reported sex and sex-diagnostic markers. The final sample of 974 subjects have Visit 2 phenotypes, approximately 100 of these do not have Visit 1 phenotypes. There was no significant plate-to-plate variation in allele frequencies. The covariate adjustments were performed separately by sex using cubic polynomial age and clinical centers, and retaining the terms in the stepwise regression analysis that were significant at the 5% level. Extreme outliers (>4 SD from the mean) were set aside, temporarily, for the adjustments. The final phenotypes were computed for all individuals using the best mean regression models and standardizing to 0 mean and unit variance. The FamHS has contributed GWA results in many phenotype domains (antropometric and adiposity, atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease, lipid profile, diabetes and glicemic traits, metabolic syndrome etc) to meta-analyses and various consortia, including Heard-Costa et al. 2009, Köttgen et al. 2010, Teslovich et al. 2010, Nettleton et al. 2010, Lango et al. 2010, Heid et al. 2010, Speliotes et al. 2010, Dupuis et al. 2010, Kraja et al. 2011.

  Study phs000221

• Whole_Genome_sequencing_of_individuals_from_Val_Borbera__Italy

  This study includes Phase 2 whole-genome sequencing data (at 4x depth)of 100 individuals from an Italian genetic isolate population (Val Borbera, abbreviated VBI) of the Italian Network of Genetic Isolates (INGI). The INGI-VBI_SEQ2 project aims to combine available extensive genetic and phenotypic data to the latest high-throughput genome sequencing technology and ad hoc statistical analysis to identify new rare genetic variants underlying complex traits.

  Study EGAS00001000458

• Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS)

  The Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study (MrOS) is a multi-center prospective, longitudinal, observational study of risk factors for vertebral and all non-vertebral fractures in older men, and of the sequelae of fractures in men. The original specific aims of the study include: (1) to define the skeletal determinants of fracture risk in older men, (2) to define lifestyle and medical factors related to fracture risk, (3) to establish the contribution of fall frequency to fracture risk in older men, (4) to determine to what extent androgen and estrogen concentrations influence fracture risk, (5) to examine the effects of fractures on quality of life, (6) to identify sex differences in the predictors and outcomes of fracture, (7) to collect and store serum, urine and DNA for future analyses as directed by emerging evidence in the fields of aging and skeletal health, and (8) define the extent to which bone mass/fracture risk and prostate diseases are linked. The MrOS study population consists of 5,994 community dwelling, ambulatory men aged 65 years or older from six communities in the United States (Birmingham, AL; Minneapolis, MN; Palo Alto, CA; Monongahela Valley near Pittsburgh, PA; Portland, OR; and San Diego, CA). Inclusion criteria were designed to provide a study cohort that is representative of the broad population of older men. The inclusion criteria were: (1) ability to walk without the assistance of another, (2) absence of bilateral hip replacements, (3) ability to provide self-reported data, (4) residence near a clinical site for the duration of the study, (5) absence of a medical condition that (in the judgment of the investigator) would result in imminent death, and (6) ability to understand and sign an informed consent. To qualify as an enrollee, the participant had to provide written informed consent, complete the self-administered questionnaire (SAQ), attend the clinic visit, and complete at least the anthropometric, DEXA, and vertebral X-ray procedures. There were no other exclusion criteria. The baseline examination was completed over a 25-month period from March 2000 to April 2002. Participants completed questionnaires regarding medical history, medications, physical activity, diet, alcohol intake, and cigarette smoking. Objective measures of anthropometric, neuromuscular, vision, strength, and cognitive variables were obtained at a clinic visit. Skeletal assessments included DEXA, calcaneal ultrasound, and vertebral radiographs. Vertebral and proximal femoral QCT was performed on a subset (65%) of participants. Serum, urine, and whole blood specimens were collected. During the study period, participants complete a tri-annual questionnaire every four months that obtains information concerning the occurrence of incident falls and fractures. Follow-up is over 99% complete. All reported fractures are confirmed using physician review of radiology reports or study radiologist review of x-rays. All deaths are also centrally adjudicated using death certificates and recent hospitalization records. In additional to the baseline study visit and tri-annual questionnaires, all surviving active participants were invited to follow-up visits and questionnaires. A second comprehensive clinic visit was completed between March 2005 and May 2006 or about 4.5 years after baseline. Most baseline measures, including vertebral radiographs, were repeated at the second visit. A third comprehensive clinic visit was completed between March 2007 and March 2009 or about 7.0 years after baseline. Many baseline measures were repeated at the third visit. A measure of energy expenditure was also obtained utilizing an accelerometer based armband device. Surviving participants have also completed two extensive mailed questionnaires designed to updated information obtained at clinic visits. The first questionnaire was mailed between baseline and visit 2 between July 2002 and March 2004. The second questionnaire was mailed after the third questionnaire between March 2009 and February 2011. The MrOS Sleep Study, an ancillary study of the parent MrOS cohort, was conducted between December 2003 and March 2005 and recruited 3,135 MrOS participants for a comprehensive sleep assessment. Men were screened for nightly use of mechanical devices during sleep including pressure mask for sleep apnea (CPAP or BiPAP), mouthpiece for snoring or sleep apnea, or oxygen therapy and were generally excluded. The sleep visit included objective measures of sleep using actigraphy and polysomnography. Other measures at the sleep visit include neuropsychiatric measures, performance measures, health related questionnaires, routine exam measures previously completed at MrOS clinic visits and a urine and serum specimen collection. During the sleep study period, participants complete a tri-annual questionnaire every four months that contains information about incident cardiovascular events. All reported events are centrally adjudicated utilizing hospital records, study ECGs and other supporting documentation. The Hip Osteoarthritis study, another ancillary study of the parent MrOS cohort, was completed at the second clinic visit between March 2005 and May 2006. Participants were asked for consent for a hip x-ray and osteoarthritis measurements were obtained from these x-rays. DNA was extracted from baseline whole blood samples for use in genetic research. Consent for use of DNA was obtained through written consent. Raw GWAS data is housed at the study's coordinating center and not released as part of the dbGAP release. The raw data can be requested from the study's coordinating center. Only QC cleaned Plink files are available on dbGAP.

  Study phs000373

• Variables of diversity, clonality, V and J usage and main COVID-19-reactive GLIPH2 frequencies.

  Main results of the T cell repertorie analysis of a cohort of 61 patients. For each patient, repertorie diversity and clonality metrics, V an J alelle frequency and COVID-19-reactive sequencies have been calculated using open.source code. For more information about the study, please visit DOI: 10.1186/s40246-024-00654-0

  Study EGAS50000000587

• Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-be Heart Health Study (nuMoM2b Heart Health Study)

  Participants from study sites that recruited during the original study funded by NICHD of pregnant people, called nuMoM2b, participated in this study. The nuMoM2b-HHS1 was a prospective observational follow-up study of the nuMoM2b cohort consisting of interval contacts via phone or web every 6 months to about a year, and an in-person visit 2 to 7 years after the end of the nuMoM2b pregnancy including: Demographics Self-administered questionnaires Clinical measurements Lab results An in-home sleep breathing assessment for the subset of participants with at least one valid sleep breathing assessment during nuMoM2b Abstraction of medical records for pregnancies subsequent to nuMoM2b involving self-reported adverse pregnancy outcomes or multiple births Abstraction of medical records of selected cardiovascular risk-related events or procedures reported by participants. The study capitalized on the rich and unique data prospectively collected during nuMoM2b (biomarkers, uterine artery Doppler studies, fetal growth, psychosocial determinants, sleep, and blood pressure) and rigorous definitions of adverse pregnancy outcomes. These data are stored in the NICHD repository DASH (https://dash.nichd.nih.gov/study/226675). A total of 8,838 nuMoM2b participants were targeted for contact during nuMoM2b-HHS and 7,872 participants were reached, of whom 7,003 completed one or more interval contacts. Of these, 5,206 agreed to the visit, and 4,508 attended an in-person visit.

  Study phs002808

• OLINK metadata EGA v2

  Sample metadata for the olink dataset. This dataset includes subject-level data and longitudinal visit day information for the corresponding samples.

  Dataset EGAD00001011165