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.

An assessment of the informative value of data sharing statements in clinical trial registries.

BACKGROUND: The provision of data sharing statements (DSS) for clinical trials has been made mandatory by different stakeholders. DSS are a device to clarify whether there is intention to share individual participant data (IPD). What is missing is a detailed assessment of whether DSS are providing clear and understandable information about the conditions for data sharing of IPD for secondary use. METHODS: A random sample of 200 COVID-19 clinical trials with explicit DSS was drawn from the ECRIN clinical research metadata repository. The DSS were assessed and classified, by two experienced experts and one assessor with less experience in data sharing (DS), into different categories (unclear, no sharing, no plans, yes but vague, yes on request, yes with specified storage location, yes but with complex conditions). RESULTS: Between the two experts the agreement was moderate to substantial (kappa=0.62, 95% CI [0.55, 0.70]). Agreement considerably decreased when these experts were compared with a third person who was less experienced and trained in data sharing ("assessor") (kappa=0.33, 95% CI [0.25, 0.41]; 0.35, 95% CI [0.27, 0.43]). Between the two experts and under supervision of an independent moderator, a consensus was achieved for those cases, where both experts had disagreed, and the result was used as "gold standard" for further analysis. At least some degree of willingness of DS (data sharing) was expressed in 63.5% (127/200) cases. Of these cases, around one quarter (31/127) were vague statements of support for data sharing but without useful detail. In around half of the cases (60/127) it was stated that IPD could be obtained by request. Only in in slightly more than 10% of the cases (15/127) it was stated that the IPD would be transferred to a specific data repository. In the remaining cases (21/127), a more complex regime was described or referenced, which could not be allocated to one of the three previous groups. As a result of the consensus meetings, the classification system was updated. CONCLUSION: The study showed that the current DSS that imply possible data sharing are often not easy to interpret, even by relatively experienced staff. Machine based interpretation, which would be necessary for any practical application, is currently not possible. Machine learning and / or natural language processing techniques might improve machine actionability, but would represent a very substantial investment of research effort. The cheaper and easier option would be for data providers, data requestors, funders and platforms to adopt a clearer, more structured and more standardised approach to specifying, providing and collecting DSS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for the study was pre-registered on ZENODO ( https://zenodo.org/record/7064624#.Y4DIAHbMJD8 ).

The impact of registration of clinical trials units: the UK experience.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, the United Kingdom has invested significant resources in its clinical trial infrastructure. Clinical research networks have been formed, and some general oversight functions for clinical research have been centralised. One of the initiatives is a registration programme for Clinical Trials Units involved in the coordination of clinical trials. An international review panel of experts in clinical trials has been convened for three reviews over time, reviewing applications from Clinical Trials Units in the United Kingdom. The process benefited from earlier work by the National Cancer Research Institute that developed accreditation procedures for trials units involved in cancer trials. This article describes the experience with the three reviews of UK Clinical Trials Units which submitted applications. PURPOSE: This article describes the evolution and impact of this registration process from the perspective of the current international review panel members, some of whom have served on all reviews, including two done by the National Cancer Research Institute. PROCESS: Applications for registration were invited from all active, non-commercial Clinical Trials Units in the United Kingdom. The invitations were issued in 2007, 2009 and 2012, and applicants were asked to describe their expertise and staffing levels in specific areas. To ensure that the reviews were as objective as possible, a description of expected core competencies was developed and applicants were asked to document their compliance with meeting these. The review panel assessed each Clinical Trials Unit against the competencies. The Clinical Trials Unit registration process has evolved over time with each successive review benefiting from what was learned in earlier ones. RESULTS: The review panel has seen positive changes over time, including an increase in the number of units applying, a greater awareness on the part of host institutions about the trials activity within their organisations, more widespread development of Standard Operating Procedures in key areas and improvements in information technology systems used to host clinical trials databases. Key funders are awarding funds only to registered units, and host institutions are implementing procedures and structures to ensure improved communication between all parties involved in trials within their organisation. CONCLUSION: The registration process developed in the United Kingdom has helped to ensure that trials units in the United Kingdom are compliant with regulatory standards and can meet acceptable standards of quality in their conduct of clinical trials. There is an increased awareness among funders, host institutions and Clinical Trials Units themselves of the required competencies, and communication between all those involved in trials has increased. The registration process is an effective and financially viable way of ensuring that objective standards are met at a national level.

ECRIN - CESSDA strategies for cross metadata mappings in selected areas between life sciences and social sciences and humanities.

Background: The recent COVID-19 (Corona Virus Disease 2019) pandemic dramatically underlined the multi-faceted nature of health research, requiring input from basic biological sciences, pharmaceutical technologies, clinical research), social sciences and public health and social engineering. Systems that could work across different disciplines would therefore seem to be a useful idea to explore. In this study we investigated whether metadata schemas and vocabularies used for discovering scientific studies and resources in the social sciences and in clinical research are similar enough to allow information from different source disciplines to be easily retrieved and presented together. Methods: As a first step a literature search was performed, exemplarily identifying studies and resources, in which data from social sciences have been usefully employed or integrated with that from clinical research and clinical trials. In a second step a comparison of metadata schemas and related resource catalogues in ECRIN (European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network) and CESSDA (Consortium of European Social Science Data Archives) was performed. The focus was on discovery metadata, here defined as the metadata elements used to identify and locate scientific resources. Results: A close view at the metadata schemas of CESSDA and ECRIN and the basic discovery metadata as well as a crosswalk between ECRIN and CESSDA metadata schemas have shown that there is considerable resemblance between them. Conclusions: The resemblance could serve as a promising starting point to implement a common search mechanism for ECRIN and CESSDA metadata. In the paper four different options for how to proceed with implementation issues are presented.

An iterative and interdisciplinary categorisation process towards FAIRer digital resources for sensitive life-sciences data.

For life science infrastructures, sensitive data generate an additional layer of complexity. Cross-domain categorisation and discovery of digital resources related to sensitive data presents major interoperability challenges. To support this FAIRification process, a toolbox demonstrator aiming at support for discovery of digital objects related to sensitive data (e.g., regulations, guidelines, best practice, tools) has been developed. The toolbox is based upon a categorisation system developed and harmonised across a cluster of 6 life science research infrastructures. Three different versions were built, tested by subsequent pilot studies, finally leading to a system with 7 main categories (sensitive data type, resource type, research field, data type, stage in data sharing life cycle, geographical scope, specific topics). 109 resources attached with the tags in pilot study 3 were used as the initial content for the toolbox demonstrator, a software tool allowing searching of digital objects linked to sensitive data with filtering based upon the categorisation system. Important next steps are a broad evaluation of the usability and user-friendliness of the toolbox, extension to more resources, broader adoption by different life-science communities, and a long-term vision for maintenance and sustainability.

Assessment of a demonstrator repository for individual clinical trial data built upon DSpace.

Background: Given the increasing number and heterogeneity of data repositories, an improvement and harmonisation of practice within repositories for clinical trial data is urgently needed. The objective of the study was to develop and evaluate a demonstrator repository, using a widely used repository system (DSpace), and then explore its suitability for providing access to individual participant data (IPD) from clinical research. Methods: After a study of the available options, DSpace (version 6.3) was selected as the software for developing a demonstrator implementation of a repository for clinical trial data. In total, 19 quality criteria were defined, using previous work assessing clinical data repositories as a guide, and the demonstrator implementation was then assessed with respect to those criteria. Results: Generally, the performance of the DSpace demonstrator repository in supporting sensitive personal data such as that from clinical trials was strong, with 14 requirements demonstrated (74%), including the necessary support for metadata and identifiers. Two requirements could not be demonstrated (the ability to include de-identification tools and the availabiltiy of a self-attestation system) and three requirements were only partially demonstrated (ability to provide links to de-identification tools and requirements, incorporation of a data transfer agreement in system workflow, and capability to offer managed access through application on a case by case basis). Conclusions: Technically, the system was able to support most of the pre-defined requirements, though there are areas where support could be improved. Of course, in a productive repository, appropriate policies and procedures would be needed to direct the use of the available technical features. A technical evaluation should therefore be seen as indicating a system's potential, rather than being a definite assessment of its suitability. DSpace clearly has considerable potential in this context and appears a suitable base for further exploration of the issues around storing sensitive data.

Evaluation of repositories for sharing individual-participant data from clinical studies.

BACKGROUND: Data repositories have the potential to play an important role in the effective and safe sharing of individual-participant data (IPD) from clinical studies. We analysed the current landscape of data repositories to create a detailed description of available repositories and assess their suitability for hosting data from clinical studies, from the perspective of the clinical researcher. METHODS: We assessed repositories that enable storage, sharing, discoverability, re-use of the IPD and associated documents from clinical studies using a pre-defined set of 34 items and publicly available information from April to June 2018. For this purpose, we developed an indicator set to capture the maturity of the repositories' procedures and their suitability for the hosting of IPD. The indicators cover guidelines for data upload and data de-identification, data quality controls, contracts for upload and storage, flexibility of access, application of identifiers, availability of metadata, and long-term preservation. RESULTS: We analysed 25 repositories, from an initial set of 55 identified as possibly relevant. Half of the included repositories were generic, i.e. not limited to a specific disease or clinical area and 13 were launched in the last 8 years. The sample was extremely heterogeneous and included repositories developed by research funders, infrastructures, universities, and editors. All but three repositories do not apply a fee for uploading, storage or access to data. None of the repositories completely demonstrated all the items included in the indicator set, but three repositories (Dryad, Drum, EASY) met - fully or partially - all items. Flexibility of data-access modalities appears to be limited, being lacking in half of the repositories. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation, though often hampered by the lack of sufficient information, can help researchers to find a suitable repository for their datasets. Some repositories are more mature because of their support for clinical dataset preparation, contractual agreements, metadata and identifiers, different modalities of access, and long-term preservation of data. Further work is now required to achieve a more robust and accurate system for evaluation, which in turn may encourage the sharing of clinical study data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study protocol available at https://zenodo.org/record/1438261#.W64kW9Egrcs .

Classification of processes involved in sharing individual participant data from clinical trials.

Background: In recent years, a cultural change in the handling of research data has resulted in the promotion of a culture of openness and an increased sharing of data. In the area of clinical trials, sharing of individual participant data involves a complex set of processes and the interaction of many actors and actions. Individual services and tools to support data sharing are becoming available, but what is missing is a detailed, structured and comprehensive list of processes and subprocesses involved and the tools and services needed. Methods: Principles and recommendations from a published consensus document on data sharing were analysed in detail by a small expert group. Processes and subprocesses involved in data sharing were identified and linked to actors and possible supporting services and tools. Definitions adapted from the business process model and notation (BPMN) were applied in the analysis. Results: A detailed and comprehensive tabulation of individual processes and subprocesses involved in data sharing, structured according to 9 main processes, is provided. Possible tools and services to support these processes are identified and grouped according to the major type of support. Conclusions: The identification of the individual processes and subprocesses and supporting tools and services, is a first step towards development of a generic framework or architecture for the sharing of data from clinical trials. Such a framework is needed to provide an overview of how the various actors, research processes and services could interact to form a sustainable system for data sharing.

Sharing and reuse of individual participant data from clinical trials: principles and recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: We examined major issues associated with sharing of individual clinical trial data and developed a consensus document on providing access to individual participant data from clinical trials, using a broad interdisciplinary approach. DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a consensus-building process among the members of a multistakeholder task force, involving a wide range of experts (researchers, patient representatives, methodologists, information technology experts, and representatives from funders, infrastructures and standards development organisations). An independent facilitator supported the process using the nominal group technique. The consensus was reached in a series of three workshops held over 1 year, supported by exchange of documents and teleconferences within focused subgroups when needed. This work was set within the Horizon 2020-funded project CORBEL (Coordinated Research Infrastructures Building Enduring Life-science Services) and coordinated by the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network. Thus, the focus was on non-commercial trials and the perspective mainly European. OUTCOME: We developed principles and practical recommendations on how to share data from clinical trials. RESULTS: The task force reached consensus on 10 principles and 50 recommendations, representing the fundamental requirements of any framework used for the sharing of clinical trials data. The document covers the following main areas: making data sharing a reality (eg, cultural change, academic incentives, funding), consent for data sharing, protection of trial participants (eg, de-identification), data standards, rights, types and management of access (eg, data request and access models), data management and repositories, discoverability, and metadata. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of the recommendations in this document would help to promote and support data sharing and reuse among researchers, adequately inform trial participants and protect their rights, and provide effective and efficient systems for preparing, storing and accessing data. The recommendations now need to be implemented and tested in practice. Further work needs to be done to integrate these proposals with those from other geographical areas and other academic domains.

A metadata schema for data objects in clinical research.

BACKGROUND: A large number of stakeholders have accepted the need for greater transparency in clinical research and, in the context of various initiatives and systems, have developed a diverse and expanding number of repositories for storing the data and documents created by clinical studies (collectively known as data objects). To make the best use of such resources, we assert that it is also necessary for stakeholders to agree and deploy a simple, consistent metadata scheme. METHODS: The relevant data objects and their likely storage are described, and the requirements for metadata to support data sharing in clinical research are identified. Issues concerning persistent identifiers, for both studies and data objects, are explored. RESULTS: A scheme is proposed that is based on the DataCite standard, with extensions to cover the needs of clinical researchers, specifically to provide (a) study identification data, including links to clinical trial registries; (b) data object characteristics and identifiers; and (c) data covering location, ownership and access to the data object. The components of the metadata scheme are described. CONCLUSIONS: The metadata schema is proposed as a natural extension of a widely agreed standard to fill a gap not tackled by other standards related to clinical research (e.g., Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium, Biomedical Research Integrated Domain Group). The proposal could be integrated with, but is not dependent on, other moves to better structure data in clinical research.

'Cloud computing' and clinical trials: report from an ECRIN workshop.

Growing use of cloud computing in clinical trials prompted the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network, a European non-profit organisation established to support multinational clinical research, to organise a one-day workshop on the topic to clarify potential benefits and risks. The issues that arose in that workshop are summarised and include the following: the nature of cloud computing and the cloud computing industry; the risks in using cloud computing services now; the lack of explicit guidance on this subject, both generally and with reference to clinical trials; and some possible ways of reducing risks. There was particular interest in developing and using a European 'community cloud' specifically for academic clinical trial data. It was recognised that the day-long workshop was only the start of an ongoing process. Future discussion needs to include clarification of trial-specific regulatory requirements for cloud computing and involve representatives from the relevant regulatory bodies.

Revising the ECRIN standard requirements for information technology and data management in clinical trials.

The pilot phase of the ECRIN (European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network) certification programme for European data centres, in late 2011, led to a substantial revision of the original ECRIN standards, completed by June 2012. The pilot phase, the conclusions drawn from it and the revised set of standards are described. Issues concerning the further development of standards and related material are discussed, as are the methods available to best support that development. A strategy is outlined based on short-lived specific task groups, established as necessary by a steering group drawn from ECRIN-ERIC. A final section discusses possible future developments.

Standard requirements for GCP-compliant data management in multinational clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: A recent survey has shown that data management in clinical trials performed by academic trial units still faces many difficulties (e.g. heterogeneity of software products, deficits in quality management, limited human and financial resources and the complexity of running a local computer centre). Unfortunately, no specific, practical and open standard for both GCP-compliant data management and the underlying IT-infrastructure is available to improve the situation. For that reason the "Working Group on Data Centres" of the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) has developed a standard specifying the requirements for high quality GCP-compliant data management in multinational clinical trials. METHODS: International, European and national regulations and guidelines relevant to GCP, data security and IT infrastructures, as well as ECRIN documents produced previously, were evaluated to provide a starting point for the development of standard requirements. The requirements were produced by expert consensus of the ECRIN Working group on Data Centres, using a structured and standardised process. The requirements were divided into two main parts: an IT part covering standards for the underlying IT infrastructure and computer systems in general, and a Data Management (DM) part covering requirements for data management applications in clinical trials. RESULTS: The standard developed includes 115 IT requirements, split into 15 separate sections, 107 DM requirements (in 12 sections) and 13 other requirements (2 sections). Sections IT01 to IT05 deal with the basic IT infrastructure while IT06 and IT07 cover validation and local software development. IT08 to IT015 concern the aspects of IT systems that directly support clinical trial management. Sections DM01 to DM03 cover the implementation of a specific clinical data management application, i.e. for a specific trial, whilst DM04 to DM12 address the data management of trials across the unit. Section IN01 is dedicated to international aspects and ST01 to the competence of a trials unit's staff. CONCLUSIONS: The standard is intended to provide an open and widely used set of requirements for GCP-compliant data management, particularly in academic trial units. It is the intention that ECRIN will use these requirements as the basis for the certification of ECRIN data centres.