Leonhard Med, a trusted research environment for processing sensitive research data.

This paper provides an overview of the development and operation of the Leonhard Med Trusted Research Environment (TRE) at ETH Zurich. Leonhard Med gives scientific researchers the ability to securely work on sensitive research data. We give an overview of the user perspective, the legal framework for processing sensitive data, design history, current status, and operations. Leonhard Med is an efficient, highly secure Trusted Research Environment for data processing, hosted at ETH Zurich and operated by the Scientific IT Services (SIS) of ETH. It provides a full stack of security controls that allow researchers to store, access, manage, and process sensitive data according to Swiss legislation and ETH Zurich Data Protection policies. In addition, Leonhard Med fulfills the BioMedIT Information Security Policies and is compatible with international data protection laws and therefore can be utilized within the scope of national and international collaboration research projects. Initially designed as a "bare-metal" High-Performance Computing (HPC) platform to achieve maximum performance, Leonhard Med was later re-designed as a virtualized, private cloud platform to offer more flexibility to its customers. Sensitive data can be analyzed in secure, segregated spaces called tenants. Technical and Organizational Measures (TOMs) are in place to assure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of sensitive data. At the same time, Leonhard Med ensures broad access to cutting-edge research software, especially for the analysis of human -omics data and other personalized health applications.

The need for robust critique of arts and health research: the treatment of the Gene Cohen et al. (2006) paper on singing, wellbeing and health in subsequent evidence reviews.

BACKGROUND: This paper considers weaknesses in a study by Cohen et al. (2006) on the impacts of community singing on health. These include high demand characteristics, lack of attention to attrition, flawed statistical analysis, and measurement. Nevertheless, the study is uncritically cited, in evidence reviews, with findings taken at face value. METHODS: Google Scholar, SCOPUS and BASE citation functions for Cohen et al. identified 32 evidence reviews in peer-reviewed journals. Eleven of these reviews, published between 2010 and 2023, focused on creative arts interventions. RESULTS: We demonstrate limitations in the Cohen et al. research which undermine the conclusions they reach regarding the health benefits of group singing. Subsequent evidence reviews take the findings at face value and offer little critical commentary. DISCUSSION: We consider what is needed to improve evidence reviews in the field of creative arts and health research. CONCLUSIONS: A more robust approach is needed in reviewing research evidence in the field of arts and health. The Cohen et al. paper is not suitable for inclusion in future evidence reviews.