Title |
DataSHIELD: taking the analysis to the data, not the data to the analysis
|
---|---|
Published in |
International Journal of Epidemiology, September 2014
|
DOI | 10.1093/ije/dyu188 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Amadou Gaye, Yannick Marcon, Julia Isaeva, Philippe LaFlamme, Andrew Turner, Elinor M Jones, Joel Minion, Andrew W Boyd, Christopher J Newby, Marja-Liisa Nuotio, Rebecca Wilson, Oliver Butters, Barnaby Murtagh, Ipek Demir, Dany Doiron, Lisette Giepmans, Susan E Wallace, Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne, Carsten Oliver Schmidt, Paolo Boffetta, Mathieu Boniol, Maria Bota, Kim W Carter, Nick deKlerk, Chris Dibben, Richard W Francis, Tero Hiekkalinna, Kristian Hveem, Kirsti Kvaløy, Sean Millar, Ivan J Perry, Annette Peters, Catherine M Phillips, Frank Popham, Gillian Raab, Eva Reischl, Nuala Sheehan, Melanie Waldenberger, Markus Perola, Edwin van den Heuvel, John Macleod, Bartha M Knoppers, Ronald P Stolk, Isabel Fortier, Jennifer R Harris, Bruce HR Woffenbuttel, Madeleine J Murtagh, Vincent Ferretti, Paul R Burton |
Abstract |
Research in modern biomedicine and social science requires sample sizes so large that they can often only be achieved through a pooled co-analysis of data from several studies. But the pooling of information from individuals in a central database that may be queried by researchers raises important ethico-legal questions and can be controversial. In the UK this has been highlighted by recent debate and controversy relating to the UK's proposed 'care.data' initiative, and these issues reflect important societal and professional concerns about privacy, confidentiality and intellectual property. DataSHIELD provides a novel technological solution that can circumvent some of the most basic challenges in facilitating the access of researchers and other healthcare professionals to individual-level data. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 15% |
Canada | 1 | 8% |
Colombia | 1 | 8% |
Australia | 1 | 8% |
Ireland | 1 | 8% |
Unknown | 7 | 54% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 10 | 77% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 15% |
Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
France | 2 | 1% |
Finland | 2 | 1% |
Bulgaria | 1 | <1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 188 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 49 | 25% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 18% |
Student > Master | 26 | 13% |
Professor | 14 | 7% |
Other | 10 | 5% |
Other | 30 | 15% |
Unknown | 33 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 23% |
Computer Science | 39 | 20% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 8% |
Social Sciences | 15 | 8% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 4% |
Other | 33 | 17% |
Unknown | 42 | 21% |