Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 7 de 7
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Nucleic Acids Res ; 45(D1): D819-D826, 2017 01 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27899644

RESUMEN

The database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) Data Browser (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap/ddb/) was developed in response to requests from the scientific community for a resource that enable view-only access to summary-level information and individual-level genotype and sequence data associated with phenotypic features maintained in the controlled-access tier of dbGaP. Until now, the dbGaP controlled-access environment required investigators to submit a data access request, wait for Data Access Committee review, download each data set and locally examine them for potentially relevant information. Existing unrestricted-access genomic data browsing resources (e.g. http://evs.gs.washington.edu/EVS/, http://exac.broadinstitute.org/) provide only summary statistics or aggregate allele frequencies. The dbGaP Data Browser serves as a third solution, providing researchers with view-only access to a compilation of individual-level data from general research use (GRU) studies through a simplified controlled-access process. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will continue to improve the Browser in response to user feedback and believes that this tool may decrease unnecessary download requests, while still facilitating responsible genomic data-sharing.


Asunto(s)
Bases de Datos Genéticas , Genómica/métodos , Genotipo , Fenotipo , Programas Informáticos , Navegador Web , Biología Computacional/métodos , Estudios de Asociación Genética/métodos
2.
JACC Basic Transl Sci ; 1(1-2): 73-86, 2016.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26977455

RESUMEN

Point-of-care technologies (POC or POCT) are enabling innovative cardiovascular diagnostics that promise to improve patient care across diverse clinical settings. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a working group to discuss POCT in cardiovascular medicine. The multidisciplinary working group, which included clinicians, scientists, engineers, device manufacturers, regulatory officials, and program staff, reviewed the state of the POCT field; discussed opportunities for POCT to improve cardiovascular care, realize the promise of precision medicine, and advance the clinical research enterprise; and identified barriers facing translation and integration of POCT with existing clinical systems. A POCT development roadmap emerged to guide multidisciplinary teams of biomarker scientists, technologists, health care providers, and clinical trialists as they: 1) formulate needs assessments; 2) define device design specifications; 3) develop component technologies and integrated systems; 4) perform iterative pilot testing; and 5) conduct rigorous prospective clinical testing to ensure that POCT solutions have substantial effects on cardiovascular care.

4.
Acad Med ; 87(12): 1710-4, 2012 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23095928

RESUMEN

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health convened a working group in June 2011 to examine alternative institutional review board (IRB) models. The working group was held in response to proposed changes in the regulations for government-supported research and the proliferation of multicenter clinical trials where multiple individual reviews may be inefficient. Group members included experts in heart, lung, and blood research, research oversight, bioethics, health economics, regulations, and information technology (IT). The group discussed alternative IRB models, ethical concerns, metrics for evaluating IRBs, IT needs, and economic considerations. Participants noted research gaps in IRB best practices and in metrics. The group arrived at recommendations for process changes, such as defining specific IRB performance requirements in funding announcements, requiring funded researchers to use more efficient alternative IRB models, and developing IT systems to facilitate information sharing and collaboration among IRBs. Despite the success of the National Cancer Institute's central IRB (CIRB), the working group, concerned about the creation costs and unknown cost-efficiency of a new CIRB, and about the risk of shifting the burden of dealing with multiple IRBs from sponsors to research institutions, did not recommend the creation of an NHLBI-funded CIRB.


Asunto(s)
Comités de Ética en Investigación/organización & administración , Modelos Organizacionales , Investigación Biomédica/normas , Conflicto de Intereses , Eficiencia Organizacional , Comités de Ética en Investigación/economía , Comités de Ética en Investigación/normas , Financiación Gubernamental , Humanos , Política Organizacional , Apoyo a la Investigación como Asunto , Estados Unidos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA