Blog Layout

NIH issues finalized policy on genomic data sharing

The National Institutes of Health has issued a final NIH Genomic Data Sharing (GDS) policy to promote data sharing as a way to speed the translation of data into knowledge, products and procedures that improve health while protecting the privacy of research participants. The final policy was posted in the Federal Register Aug. 26, 2014 and published in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts Aug. 27, 2014.


Genomic Data Sharing Policy


Starting with funding applications submitted for a Jan. 25, 2015, receipt date, the policy will apply to all NIH-funded, large-scale human and non-human projects that generate genomic data. This includes research conducted with the support of NIH grants and contracts and within the NIH Intramural Research Program. NIH officials finalized the policy after reviewing public comments on a draft released in September 2013.


The GDS policy can be traced to the Human Genome Project, completed in 2003, which required rapid and broad data release during its mapping and sequencing of the human genome. The GDS policy is an extension of and replaces the Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) data sharing policy. Since 2007, the GWAS policy has governed biomedical researchers’ submission and access to human data through the NIH database for Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP). Its two-tiered data distribution system has made some information and data available to the public without restrictions. Access to other data has been controlled and made available only for research purposes consistent with the consent provided by participants in the original study.


Under the GWAS policy, more than 2,200 investigators from 41 different countries have received access to dbGaP data from 304 studies and produced more than 900 publications. A report on genomic data sharing through dbGaP under the GWAS policy appears in the Aug. 27, 2014, advance online issue of Nature Genetics. The report was written by members of the NIH Genomic Data Sharing policy team.


“Everyone is eager to see the incredible deluge of molecular discoveries about disease translated into prevention, diagnostics, and therapeutics for patients,” said Kathy Hudson, Ph.D., NIH deputy director for science, outreach and policy. “The collective knowledge achieved through data sharing benefits researchers and patients alike, but it must be done carefully. The GDS policy outlines the responsibilities of investigators and institutions that are using the data and also encourages researchers to get consent from participants for future unspecified use of their genomic data.”


Along with statistics about the use of dbGaP data, the Nature Genetics report outlines the challenges facing the field, such as the increased volume and complexity of genomic data.


“Advances in DNA sequencing technologies have enabled NIH to conduct and fund research that generates ever-greater volumes of GWAS and other types of genomic data,” said Eric Green, M.D., Ph.D., NHGRI director, report co-author and a co-chair of the trans-NIH committee that developed the GDS policy. “Access to these data through dbGaP and according to the data management practices laid out in the policy allows researchers to accelerate research by combining and comparing large and information-rich datasets.”


A key tenet of the GDS policy is the expectation that researchers obtain the informed consent of study participants for the potential future use of their de-identified data for research and for broad sharing. NIH also has similar expectations for studies that involve the use of de-identified cell lines or clinical specimens.


The two-tiered system for providing access to human data is based on data sensitivity and privacy concerns developed under the GWAS policy will continue. For controlled-access data, investigators will be expected to use data only for the approved research, protect data confidentiality (including not sharing the data with unauthorized people), and acknowledge data-submitting investigators in presentations and publications.


NIH expects any institution submitting data to certify that the data were collected in a legal and ethically appropriate manner and that personal identifiers, such as name or address, have been removed. The NIH GDS policy also expects investigators and their institutions to provide basic plans for following the GDS policy as part of funding proposals and applications.


Other highlights of the GDS policy


  • Investigators are encouraged to seek the broadest possible sharing permissions from participants for future research use of their data.
  • Timelines for data submission and access should promote timely and broad data sharing while being mindful of the significant effort by investigators to generate and prepare data for release, as well as to realize benefit from engaging research participants.
  • In general, investigators should make non-human genomic data publicly available no later than the date of initial publication. Non-human data can be deposited into widely used NIH-designated repositories other than dbGaP.
  • The NIH GDS policy explicitly encourages the broadest possible use of findings and development of products/technologies from the use of NIH-funded genomic data to promote maximum public benefit.
  • The scope is intentionally general enough to accommodate the evolving nature of genomic technologies, with more specific expectations provided through accompanying Supplemental Information to the NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy.

The NIH GDS governance structure, described at http://gds.nih.gov/04po2.html, will be responsible for oversight of the GDS policy, including policy needs and issues related to data submission and access. The committees will also monitor scientific and ethical or legal developments that might warrant further policy development. Compliance with the policy will become a special condition in the grant or contract award. Failure to comply could lead to enforcement actions.


Investigators should submit data-sharing plans that meet the expectations of the GDS policy with the extramural funding application or prior to the start of intramural research projectsNIH advises investigators seeking funding to contact relevant extramural program directors or an NIH institute or center Genomic Program Administrator (GPA) as early as possible to discuss data sharing expectations and timelines that would apply to their proposed studies. For a list of GPAs, visit http://gds.nih.gov/04po2_2GPA.html.


For complete information about genomic data sharing and a link to the GDS policy, see http://gds.nih.gov.


Paltoo, DN, Rodriguez, LL, Feolo, M, et al. Data Use under the NIH GWAS Data Sharing Policy and Future Directions. Nature Genetics 46, 934–938 (2014) doi:10.1038/ng.3062 Published online 27 August 2014: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v46/n9/full/ng.3062.html.


About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation's medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

Share this Article with others

Automated Artificial Intelligence Model Trained on a Large Data Sets

08 Mar, 2024
The aims of our case-control study were (1) to develop an automated 3-dimensional (3D) Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) for detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) on diagnostic computed tomography scans (CTs), (2) evaluate its generalizability on multi-institutional public data sets, (3) its utility as a potential screening tool using a simulated cohort with high pretest probability, and (4) its ability to detect visually occult preinvasive cancer on prediagnostic CTs.

Predicting Medication Responses using Machine Learning Models

08 Mar, 2024
Cancer Mutations Converge on a Collection of Protein Assemblies to Predict Resistance to Replication Stress

Analysis and Visualization of Longitudinal Genomic and Clinical Data from the AACR Project GENIE Biopharma Collaborative in cBioPortal

08 Mar, 2024
International cancer registries make real-world genomic and clinical data available, but their joint analysis remains a challenge. AACR Project GENIE, an international cancer registry collecting data from 19 cancer centers, makes data from >130,000 patients publicly available through the cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics (https://genie.cbioportal.org). For 25,000 patients, additional real-world longitudinal clinical data, including treatment and outcome data, are being collected by the AACR Project GENIE Biopharma Collaborative using the PRISSMM data curation model. Several thousand of these cases are now also available in cBioPortal. We have significantly enhanced the functionalities of cBioPortal to support the visualization and analysis of this rich clinico-genomic linked dataset, as well as datasets generated by other centers and consortia. Examples of these enhancements include (i) visualization of the longitudinal clinical and genomic data at the patient level, including timelines for diagnoses, treatments, and outcomes; (ii) the ability to select samples based on treatment status, facilitating a comparison of molecular and clinical attributes between samples before and after a specific treatment; and (iii) survival analysis estimates based on individual treatment regimens received. Together, these features provide cBioPortal users with a toolkit to interactively investigate complex clinico-genomic data to generate hypotheses and make discoveries about the impact of specific genomic variants on prognosis and therapeutic sensitivities in cancer.

FORGEdb: a tool for identifying candidate functional variants and uncovering target genes and mechanisms for complex diseases

08 Mar, 2024
The majority of disease-associated variants identified through genome-wide association studies are located outside of protein-coding regions. Prioritizing candidate regulatory variants and gene targets to identify potential biological mechanisms for further functional experiments can be challenging. To address this challenge, we developed FORGEdb, a standalone and web-based tool that integrates multiple datasets, delivering information on associated regulatory elements, transcription factor binding sites, and target genes for over 37 million variants. FORGEdb scores provide researchers with a quantitative assessment of the relative importance of each variant for targeted functional experiments.

Machine Learning and AI in Cancer Prognosis, Prediction, and Treatment Selection: A Critical Approach

By Bo Zhang • 08 Mar, 2024
Cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. While progress has been made in the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of cancer patients, individualized and data-driven care remains a challenge. Artificial intelligence (AI), which is used to predict and automate many cancers, has emerged as a promising option for improving healthcare accuracy and patient outcomes. AI applications in oncology include risk assessment, early diagnosis, patient prognosis estimation, and treatment selection based on deep knowledge. Machine learning (ML), a subset of AI that enables computers to learn from training data, has been highly effective at predicting various types of cancer, including breast, brain, lung, liver, and prostate cancer. In fact, AI and ML have demonstrated greater accuracy in predicting cancer than clinicians. These technologies also have the potential to improve the diagnosis, prognosis, and quality of life of patients with various illnesses, not just cancer. Therefore, it is important to improve current AI and ML technologies and to develop new programs to benefit patients. This article examines the use of AI and ML algorithms in cancer prediction, including their current applications, limitations, and future prospects. Lead Author: Bo Zhang

Artificial intelligence in oncology: current applications and future perspectives

By Claudio Luchini • 08 Mar, 2024
Artificial intelligence (AI) is concretely reshaping the landscape and horizons of oncology, opening new important opportunities for improving the management of cancer patients. Analysing the AI-based devices that have already obtained the official approval by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), here we show that cancer diagnostics is the oncology-related area in which AI is already entered with the largest impact into clinical practice. Furthermore, breast, lung and prostate cancers represent the specific cancer types that now are experiencing more advantages from AI-based devices. The future perspectives of AI in oncology are discussed: the creation of multidisciplinary platforms, the comprehension of the importance of all neoplasms, including rare tumours and the continuous support for guaranteeing its growth represent in this time the most important challenges for finalising the ‘AI-revolution’ in oncology. First Author: Claudio Luchini,

Using electronic health record data: a machine learning approach with a 2-year horizon

By Panayiotis Petousis, PhD • 08 Mar, 2024
In the United States, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is responsible for high mortality and significant healthcare costs, with the number of cases sharply increasing in the past 2 decades. In this study, we aimed to reduce these impacts by developing an ESKD model for predicting its occurrence in a 2-year period.  Lead Author: Panayiotis Petousis, PhD

Multimodal AI-powered approaches in prevention and management

By Evan D. Muse • 08 Mar, 2024
Transforming the cardiometabolic disease landscape: Multimodal AI-powered approaches in prevention and management Lead Author: Evan D. Muse

Promise and Perils of Large Language Models for Cancer Survivorship and Supportive Care

By Danielle S. Bitterman, MD • 08 Mar, 2024
Current status and future applications of LLMs for cancer symptom management and call for cross-disciplinary collaboration that centers the needs of patients and caregivers L ead Author: Danielle S. Bitterman, MD

Can A.I. Treat Mental Illness?

01 Mar, 2023
New computer systems aim to peer inside our heads—and to help us fix what they find there In the nineteen-sixties, Joseph Weizenbaum, a computer scientist at M.I.T., created a computer program called Eliza. It was designed to simulate Rogerian therapy, in which the patient directs the conversation and the therapist often repeats her language back to her: U ser : My boyfriend made me come here. E liza : Your boyfriend made you come here. U ser : He says I’m depressed much of the time. E liza : I am sorry to hear you are depressed. U ser : It’s true. I am unhappy. E liza : Do you think coming here will help you not to be unhappy? Weizenbaum made Eliza as satire. He doubted that computers could simulate meaningful human interaction. He was alarmed, therefore, when many people who tried the program found it both useful and captivating. His own secretary asked him to leave the room so that she could spend time alone with Eliza. Worse, doctors saw it as a potentially transformative tool. “Several hundred patients an hour could be handled by a computer system designed for this purpose,” three psychiatrists wrote in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, in 1966. “The human therapist, involved in the design and operation of this system, would not be replaced, but would become a much more efficient man since his efforts would no longer be limited to the one-to-one patient-therapist ratio as now exists.” Weizenbaum became an outspoken critic of artificial intelligence. “But the genie was out of the bottle,” Brian Christian, who chronicled the episode in his book “The Most Human Human,” told me. A few years later, a Stanford psychiatrist named Kenneth Colby created Parry, a program that attempted to simulate the language of a person with paranoid schizophrenia, to train students before they cared for real patients. Psychiatrists given transcripts of therapy sessions often couldn’t tell the difference between Parry and humans; in this narrow sense, the chatbot passed the Turing test. In 1972, Parry and Eliza met up for a therapy session: P arry : Do you know anything about bookies? E liza : What makes you think I know anything about bookies? P arry : A bookie didn’t pay me off once. E liza : What does that suggest to you? P arry : I beat up the bookie who did not pay off, and I thought he might use his friends in the underworld to get even with me.  Over time, programmers developed Jabberwacky, Dr. Sbaitso, and alice (the Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer Entity). Exchanges with these chatbots were often engaging, sometimes comical, and occasionally nonsensical. But the idea that computers could serve as human confidants, expanding therapy’s reach beyond the limits of its overworked practitioners, persisted through the decades. In 2017, Alison Darcy, a clinical research psychologist at Stanford, founded Woebot, a company that provides automated mental-health support through a smartphone app. Its approach is based on cognitive behavioral therapy, or C.B.T.—a treatment that aims to change patterns in people’s thinking. The app uses a form of artificial intelligence called natural language processing to interpret what users say, guiding them through sequences of pre-written responses that spur them to consider how their minds could work differently. When Darcy was in graduate school, she treated dozens of hospitalized patients using C.B.T.; many experienced striking improvements but relapsed after they left the hospital. C.B.T. is “best done in small quantities over and over and over again,” she told me. In the analog world, that sort of consistent, ongoing care is hard to find: more than half of U.S. counties don’t have a single psychiatrist, and, last year, a survey conducted by the American Psychological Association found that sixty per cent of mental-health practitioners don’t have openings for new patients. “No therapist can be there with you all day, every day,” Darcy said. Although the company employs only about a hundred people, it has counseled nearly a million and a half, the majority of whom live in areas with a shortage of mental-health providers. Link to original article on The New Yorker
Share by: