Bringing Code to Data: Do Not Forget Governance
Clicks: 89
ID: 273921
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
26.4
/100
89 views
22 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #293 of 296 articles by views in Journal of medical Internet research
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 296 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Developing or independently evaluating algorithms in biomedical research is difficult because of restrictions on access to clinical data. Access is restricted because of privacy concerns, the proprietary treatment of data by institutions (fueled in part by the cost of data hosting, curation, and distribution), concerns over misuse, and the complexities of applicable regulatory frameworks. The use of cloud technology and services can address many of the barriers to data sharing. For example, researchers can access data in high performance, secure, and auditable cloud computing environments without the need for copying or downloading. An alternative path to accessing data sets requiring additional protection is the model-to-data approach. In model-to-data, researchers submit algorithms to run on secure data sets that remain hidden. Model-to-data is designed to enhance security and local control while enabling communities of researchers to generate new knowledge from sequestered data. Model-to-data has not yet been widely implemented, but pilots have demonstrated its utility when technical or legal constraints preclude other methods of sharing. We argue that model-to-data can make a valuable addition to our data sharing arsenal, with 2 caveats. First, model-to-data should only be adopted where necessary to supplement rather than replace existing data-sharing approaches given that it requires significant resource commitments from data stewards and limits scientific freedom, reproducibility, and scalability. Second, although model-to-data reduces concerns over data privacy and loss of local control when sharing clinical data, it is not an ethical panacea. Data stewards will remain hesitant to adopt model-to-data approaches without guidance on how to do so responsibly. To address this gap, we explored how commitments to open science, reproducibility, security, respect for data subjects, and research ethics oversight must be re-evaluated in a model-to-data context.
| Reference Key |
knoppers2020journalbringing
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Bartha Knoppers; |
| Journal | Journal of medical Internet research |
| Year | 2020 |
| DOI |
doi:10.2196/18087
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.