Background

Providing for long-term and consistent public access to scientific data is a growing concern in biomedical research. One aspect of this problem can be demonstrated by evaluating the persistence of supplementary data associated with published biomedical papers.

Methods

We manually evaluated 655 supplementary data links extracted from PubMed abstracts published 1998-2005 (Method 1) as well as a further focused subset of 162 full-text manuscripts published within three representative high-impact biomedical journals between September and December 2004 (Method 2).

Results

For Method 1 we found that since 2001, only 71 - 92% of supplementary data were still accessible via the links provided, with 93% of these inaccessible links occurring where supplementary data was not stored with the publishing journal. Of the manuscripts evaluated in Method 2, we found that only 83% of these links were available approximately a year after publication, with 55% of these inaccessible links were at locations outside the journal of publication.

Conclusion

We conclude that if supplemental data is required to support the publication, journals policies must take-on the responsibility to accept and store such data or require that it be maintained with a credible independent institution or under the terms of a strategic data storage plan specified by the authors. We further recommend that publishers provide automated systems to ensure that supplementary links remain persistent, and that granting bodies such as the NIH develop policies and funding mechanisms to maintain long-term persistent access to these data.

Nearly a decade since the completion of the first draft of the human genome, the biomedical community is positioned to usher in a new era of scientific inquiry that links fundamental biological insights with clinical knowledge. Accordingly, holistic approaches are needed to develop and assess hypotheses that incorporate genotypic, phenotypic, and environmental knowledge. This perspective presents translational bioinformatics as a discipline that builds on the successes of bioinformatics and health informatics for the study of complex diseases. The early successes of translational bioinformatics are indicative of the potential to achieve the promise of the Human Genome Project for gaining deeper insights to the genetic underpinnings of disease and progress toward the development of a new generation of therapies.

Objective

The Cross-Institutional Clinical Translational Research project explored a federated query tool and looked at how this tool can facilitate clinical trial cohort discovery by managing access to aggregate patient data located within unaffiliated academic medical centers.

Methods

The project adapted software from the Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) program to connect three Clinical Translational Research Award sites: University of Washington, Seattle, University of California, Davis, and University of California, San Francisco. The project developed an iterative spiral software development model to support the implementation and coordination of this multisite data resource.

Results

By standardizing technical infrastructures, policies, and semantics, the project enabled federated querying of deidentified clinical datasets stored in separate institutional environments and identified barriers to engaging users for measuring utility.

Discussion

The authors discuss the iterative development and evaluation phases of the project and highlight the challenges identified and the lessons learned.

Conclusion

The common system architecture and translational processes provide high-level (aggregate) deidentified access to a large patient population (>5 million patients), and represent a novel and extensible resource. Enhancing the network for more focused disease areas will require research-driven partnerships represented across all partner sites.

A robust biomedical informatics infrastructure is essential for academic health centers engaged in translational research. There are no templates for what such an infrastructure encompasses or how it is funded. An informatics workgroup within the Clinical and Translational Science Awards network conducted an analysis to identify the scope, governance, and funding of this infrastructure. After we identified the essential components of an informatics infrastructure, we surveyed informatics leaders at network institutions about the governance and sustainability of the different components. Results from 42 survey respondents showed significant variations in governance and sustainability; however, some trends also emerged. Core informatics components such as electronic data capture systems, electronic health records data repositories, and related tools had mixed models of funding including, fee-for-service, extramural grants, and institutional support. Several key components such as regulatory systems (e.g., electronic Institutional Review Board [IRB] systems, grants, and contracts), security systems, data warehouses, and clinical trials management systems were overwhelmingly supported as institutional infrastructure. The findings highlighted in this report are worth noting for academic health centers and funding agencies involved in planning current and future informatics infrastructure, which provides the foundation for a robust, data-driven clinical and translational research program.