Make open data sharing a no-brainer for ethics committees.

Statement of the problem

The ideology of open and reproducible science makes its ways into various fields of science. Neuroimaging is a driving force today behind many fields of brain sciences. Despite possibly terabytes of neuroimaging data collected for research daily, just a small fraction becomes publicly available. Partially it is because management of neuroimaging data requires to confirm to established legal norms, i.e. addressing the aspect of subjects privacy. Those norms are usually established by institutional review boards (IRB, or otherwise called ethics committees), which are in turn “governed” by the federal regulations, such as 45 Code of Federal Regulations Part 46 in US.

Flexibility in interpretation of original regulations established in the past century, decentralization of those committees, and lack of a “community” influence over them created the problem: for neuroimaging studies there is no commonly accepted version of a Consent form template which would allow for collected imaging data to be shared as openly as possible while providing adequate guarantees for subjects’ privacy. In majority of the cases, used Consent forms simply do not include any provision for public sharing of the data to get a “speedy” IRB approval for a study. Situation is particularly tricky because major granting agencies (e.g. NIH, NSF) nowadays require public data sharing, but do not provide explicit instructions on how.

Overall approach

We would like to facilitate neuroimaging data sharing by providing an “out of the box” solution addressing aforementioned human subjects concerns and consisting of

  • widely acceptable consent form allowing deposition of annonymized data to public data archives
  • collection of tools/pipelines to help annonymisation of neuroimaging data making it ready for sharing

Annonimization

Data must be de-identified before distribution. We will collect information on existing and possibly establishing an ultimate easy to use pipeline to standardize annonimization of neuroimaging data to simplify data sharing.

Content

Recommendations

Here we would like to list existing recommendations from various foundations and organizations

International Coordination Facility (INCF) Neuroimaging taskforce

Data Sharing Language Recommendations (J.Turner, D.Kennedy, JB Poline, J. Roberts) provides a thorough summary over current state of used consent forms among neuroimaging studies and some data sharing initiatives. It further develops a set of recommendations on consent form language for perspective studies and analysis of public sharing of legacy data.

Discussions

Chris Gorgolewski (Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences)

Source:

Furthermore, I agree that my anonymised data may be made available to a central MRI data centre. A data centre is an Internet server for anonymised MRI data and makes published image data accessible to researchers around the world. This allows further supplementary processing and repeated analyses. It also serves the purpose of making the results more transparent and accelerating the progress of research in the brain sciences. Some scientific journals already make the on-line availability of data a prerequisite for publication.
Feedback to the post
Pierre Bellec Apr 8, 2014
Thanks for sharing the template ! I tried to get such a paragraph in a consent form three years ago, and after one year of discussion with the IRB I had finally to remove it. I found that at least at my institution it is very important to describe the data repository, data use agreement and anonymization strategy (as well as other variables shared in addition to imaging) in order to get approval.
Michael Hanke Apr 8, 2014
Thanks! That adds some facets that I haven’t used in mine before. Another aspect that I found necessary is to inform participants that data is actually accessible by anyone, not just scientists – this avoids concerns regarding access permissions and authentication. Moreover, at least in Germany participants can change their mind on the data sharing permission and can ask for their data to be removed from a database – even if it may not have an actual effect on privacy once data were out in the open. Lastly, I can confirm that information on what kind of data are shared is important, and at least a rough idea what kind of anonymization strategy is used. Ah and, not giving permission to share data must not lead to “disadvantages” for a person – this is mandated by law in Germany. Not sure what this means in the context of a scientific study, but I would not exclude a participant solely based on his or her unwillingness to share data.
Cyril Pernet Apr 9, 2014
In UK it’s getting crazy. For our data bank we are planning de-identification ie face and ear removal and or scrubbing, you know is case your insurance compagny decides to make 3d models of data, recognize you, and found something weird in your brain that our radiologists and neurologist haven’t seen before …

Annonimization tools

Sanitarization of headers/filenames

Elimination of facial (and dental) features

Skull stripping

One of the approaches is perform complete skull stripping using the used analysis toolkit, e.g.

Some dedicated annonimization tools work on this principle, e.g. DeID

Faces/dental stripping

More “gentle” approach is to strip out only the areas of face/mouth leaving skull, which might be important for some types of analysis. Usually achieved through alignment of pre-crafted mask to the subject anatomy and removing of the masked out regions.

Rendering faces unrecognizable

Even more data/information preserving approach is to just obscure facial features in the anatomical images:

Contribute

Researchers

Survey

Please first fill out the VERY brief survey about the consent forms for your studies: http://goo.gl/forms/2lsmYcOsAs . It has only few questions and should take only a few minutes to fill out. Even if your Consent form doesn’t include yet any provision for data sharing – your contribution would be very valuable, although would consist of simply saying “No”.

Additional materials

Please report to GitHub issues or even send a new pull request via GitHub pull requests with

  • samples of consent forms allowing re-distribution/deposit to public archives
  • relevant publications and discussions
  • changes/recommendations for the ultimate consent form formulation

IRB committee members

We would welcome your feedback very much, in particular

  • what concerns on public sharing of neuroimaging data you might have if any identifiable information removed (e.g. skull stripped) and subjects agreed to those terms?
  • what particular consent form composition and wording aspects would you recommend? (e.g. “make it an explicit additional form requiring a separate signature”) and why?

Contact information

Issues | Pull requests | Build status | Website