↓ Skip to main content

Toward a Tiered Model to Share Clinical Trial Data and Samples in Precision Oncology

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Toward a Tiered Model to Share Clinical Trial Data and Samples in Precision Oncology
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefanie Broes, Denis Lacombe, Michiel Verlinden, Isabelle Huys

Abstract

The recent revolution in science and technology applied to medical research has left in its wake a trial of biomedical data and human samples; however, its opportunities remain largely unfulfilled due to a number of legal, ethical, financial, strategic, and technical barriers. Precision oncology has been at the vanguard to leverage this potential of "Big data" and samples into meaningful solutions for patients, considering the need for new drug development approaches in this area (due to high costs, late-stage failures, and the molecular diversity of cancer). To harness the potential of the vast quantities of data and samples currently fragmented across databases and biobanks, it is critical to engage all stakeholders and share data and samples across research institutes. Here, we identified two general types of sharing strategies. First, open access models, characterized by the absence of any review panel or decision maker, and second controlled access model where some form of control is exercised by either the donor (i.e., patient), the data provider (i.e., initial organization), or an independent party. Further, we theoretically describe and provide examples of nine different strategies focused on greater sharing of patient data and material. These models provide varying levels of control, access to various data and/or samples, and different types of relationship between the donor, data provider, and data requester. We propose a tiered model to share clinical data and samples that takes into account privacy issues and respects sponsors' legitimate interests. Its implementation would contribute to maximize the value of existing datasets, enabling unraveling the complexity of tumor biology, identify novel biomarkers, and re-direct treatment strategies better, ultimately to help patients with cancer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 4%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 16 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Computer Science 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 15 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,489,831
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#3,056
of 5,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,465
of 441,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#65
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,795 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.