Sharing sensitive data in life sciences: an overview of centralized and federated approaches.

Biomedical data are generated and collected from various sources, including medical imaging, laboratory tests and genome sequencing. Sharing these data for research can help address unmet health needs, contribute to scientific breakthroughs, accelerate the development of more effective treatments and inform public health policy. Due to the potential sensitivity of such data, however, privacy concerns have led to policies that restrict data sharing. In addition, sharing sensitive data requires a secure and robust infrastructure with appropriate storage solutions. Here, we examine and compare the centralized and federated data sharing models through the prism of five large-scale and real-world use cases of strategic significance within the European data sharing landscape: the French Health Data Hub, the BBMRI-ERIC Colorectal Cancer Cohort, the federated European Genome-phenome Archive, the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership/OHDSI network and the EBRAINS Medical Informatics Platform. Our analysis indicates that centralized models facilitate data linkage, harmonization and interoperability, while federated models facilitate scaling up and legal compliance, as the data typically reside on the data generator's premises, allowing for better control of how data are shared. This comparative study thus offers guidance on the selection of the most appropriate sharing strategy for sensitive datasets and provides key insights for informed decision-making in data sharing efforts.

Unlocking the potential of big data and AI in medicine: insights from biobanking.

Big data and artificial intelligence are key elements in the medical field as they are expected to improve accuracy and efficiency in diagnosis and treatment, particularly in identifying biomedically relevant patterns, facilitating progress towards individually tailored preventative and therapeutic interventions. These applications belong to current research practice that is data-intensive. While the combination of imaging, pathological, genomic, and clinical data is needed to train algorithms to realize the full potential of these technologies, biobanks often serve as crucial infrastructures for data-sharing and data flows. In this paper, we argue that the 'data turn' in the life sciences has increasingly re-structured major infrastructures, which often were created for biological samples and associated data, as predominantly data infrastructures. These have evolved and diversified over time in terms of tackling relevant issues such as harmonization and standardization, but also consent practices and risk assessment. In line with the datafication, an increased use of AI-based technologies marks the current developments at the forefront of the big data research in life science and medicine that engender new issues and concerns along with opportunities. At a time when secure health data environments, such as European Health Data Space, are in the making, we argue that such meta-infrastructures can benefit both from the experience and evolution of biobanking, but also the current state of affairs in AI in medicine, regarding good governance, the social aspects and practices, as well as critical thinking about data practices, which can contribute to trustworthiness of such meta-infrastructures.

Risk mapping for better governance in biobanking: the case of biobank.cy.

Introduction: Risk governance is central for the successful and ethical operation of biobanks and the continued social license for being custodians of samples and data. Risks in biobanking are often framed as risks for participants, whereas the biobank's risks are often considered as technical ones. Risk governance relies on identifying, assessing, mitigating and communicating all risks based on technical and standardized procedures. However, within such processes, biobank staff are often involved tangentially. In this study, the aim has been to conduct a risk mapping exercise bringing biobank staff as key actors into the process, making better sense of emerging structure of biobanks. Methods: Based on the qualitative research method of situational analysis as well as the card-based discussion and stakeholder engagement processes, risk mapping was conducted at the biobank setting as an interactive engagement exercise. The analyzed material comprises mainly of moderated group discussions. Results: The findings from the risk mapping activity are framed through an organismic metaphor: the biobank as a growing, living organism in a changing environment, where trust and sustainability are cross-cutting elements in making sense of the risks. Focusing on the situatedness of the dynamics within biobanking activity highlights the importance of prioritizing relations at the core of risk governance and promoting ethicality in the biobanking process by expanding the repertoire of considered risks. Conclusion: With the organismic metaphor, the research brings the diverse group of biobank staff to the central stage for risk governance, highlighting how accounting for such diversity and interdependencies at the biobank setting is a prerequisite for an adaptive risk governance.