The NeuroBase project aims at studying the requirements for federating, through the Internet, information sources in neuroimaging. These sources are distributed in different experimental sites, hospitals or research centers in cognitive neurosciences, and contain heterogeneous data and image processing programs. More precisely, this project consists in creating of a shared ontology, suitable for supporting various neuroimaging applications, and a computer architecture for accessing and sharing relevant distributed information. We briefly describe the semantic model and report in more details the architecture we chose, based on a media-tor/wrapper approach. To give a flavor of the future deployment of our architecture, we de-scribe a demonstrator that implements the comparison of distributed image processing tools applied to distributed neuroimaging data.
The NeuroBase project aims at studying the requirements for federating, through the Internet, information sources in neuroimaging. These sources are distributed in different experimental sites, hospitals or research centers in cognitive neurosciences, and contain heterogeneous data and image processing programs. More precisely, this project consists in creating of a shared ontology, suitable for supporting various neuroimaging applications, and a computer architecture for accessing and sharing relevant distributed information. We briefly describe the semantic model and report in more details the architecture we chose, based on a media-tor/wrapper approach. To give a flavor of the future deployment of our architecture, we de-scribe a demonstrator that implements the comparison of distributed image processing tools applied to distributed neuroimaging data.
The NeuroBase project aims at studying the requirements for federating, through the Internet, information sources in neuroimaging. These sources are distributed in different experimental sites, hospitals or research centers in cognitive neurosciences, and contain heterogeneous data and image processing programs. More precisely, this project consists in creating of a shared ontology, suitable for supporting various neuroimaging applications, and a computer architecture for accessing and sharing relevant distributed information. We briefly describe the semantic model and report in more details the architecture we chose, based on a media-tor/wrapper approach. To give a flavor of the future deployment of our architecture, we de-scribe a demonstrator that implements the comparison of distributed image processing tools applied to distributed neuroimaging data.
The NeuroBase project aims at studying the requirements for federating, through the Internet, information sources in neuroimaging. These sources are distributed in different experimental sites, hospitals or research centers in cognitive neurosciences, and contain heterogeneous data and image processing programs. More precisely, this project consists in creating of a shared ontology, suitable for supporting various neuroimaging applications, and a computer architecture for accessing and sharing relevant distributed information. We briefly describe the semantic model and report in more details the architecture we chose, based on a media-tor/wrapper approach. To give a flavor of the future deployment of our architecture, we de-scribe a demonstrator that implements the comparison of distributed image processing tools applied to distributed neuroimaging data.
The NeuroBase project aims at studying the requirements for federating, through the Internet, information sources in neuroimaging. These sources are distributed in different experimental sites, hospitals or research centers in cognitive neurosciences, and contain heterogeneous data and image processing programs. More precisely, this project consists in creating of a shared ontology, suitable for supporting various neuroimaging applications, and a computer architecture for accessing and sharing relevant distributed information. We briefly describe the semantic model and report in more details the architecture we chose, based on a media-tor/wrapper approach. To give a flavor of the future deployment of our architecture, we de-scribe a demonstrator that implements the comparison of distributed image processing tools applied to distributed neuroimaging data.
The NeuroBase project aims at studying the requirements for federating, through the Internet, information sources in neuroimaging. These sources are distributed in different experimental sites, hospitals or research centers in cognitive neurosciences, and contain heterogeneous data and image processing programs. More precisely, this project consists in creating of a shared ontology, suitable for supporting various neuroimaging applications, and a computer architecture for accessing and sharing relevant distributed information. We briefly describe the semantic model and report in more details the architecture we chose, based on a media-tor/wrapper approach. To give a flavor of the future deployment of our architecture, we de-scribe a demonstrator that implements the comparison of distributed image processing tools applied to distributed neuroimaging data.
The NeuroBase project aims at studying the requirements for federating, through the Internet, information sources in neuroimaging. These sources are distributed in different experimental sites, hospitals or research centers in cognitive neurosciences, and contain heterogeneous data and image processing programs. More precisely, this project consists in creating of a shared ontology, suitable for supporting various neuroimaging applications, and a computer architecture for accessing and sharing relevant distributed information. We briefly describe the semantic model and report in more details the architecture we chose, based on a media-tor/wrapper approach. To give a flavor of the future deployment of our architecture, we de-scribe a demonstrator that implements the comparison of distributed image processing tools applied to distributed neuroimaging data.
The NeuroBase project aims at studying the requirements for federating, through the Internet, information sources in neuroimaging. These sources are distributed in different experimental sites, hospitals or research centers in cognitive neurosciences, and contain heterogeneous data and image processing programs. More precisely, this project consists in creating of a shared ontology, suitable for supporting various neuroimaging applications, and a computer architecture for accessing and sharing relevant distributed information. We briefly describe the semantic model and report in more details the architecture we chose, based on a media-tor/wrapper approach. To give a flavor of the future deployment of our architecture, we de-scribe a demonstrator that implements the comparison of distributed image processing tools applied to distributed neuroimaging data.
Background The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency. Methods We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe. Results From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75–224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074). Conclusion We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries.
In: Timmers , M , Van Dijck , J T J M , Van Wijk , R P J , Legrand , V , Van Veen , E , Maas , A I R , Menon , D K , Citerio , G , Stocchetti , N , Kompanje , E J O , Åkerlund , C , Amrein , K , Andelic , N , Andreassen , L , Anke , A , Antoni , A , Audibert , G , Azouvi , P , Azzolini , M L , Bartels , R , Barzó , P , Beauvais , R , Beer , R , Bellander , B M , Belli , A , Benali , H , Berardino , M , Beretta , L , Blaabjerg , M , Bragge , P , Brazinova , A , Brinck , V , Brooker , J , Brorsson , C , Buki , A , Bullinger , M , Cabeleira , M , Caccioppola , A , Calappi , E , Calvi , M R , Cameron , P , Lozano , G C , Carbonara , M , Cavallo , S , Chevallard , G , Chieregato , A , Ceyisakar , I , Coburn , M , Coles , J , Kondziella , D & The CENTER-TBI investigators and participants 2020 , ' How do 66 European institutional review boards approve one protocol for an international prospective observational study on traumatic brain injury? Experiences from the CENTER-TBI study ' , BMC Medical Ethics , vol. 21 , no. 1 , 36 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00480-8
Background: The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency. Methods: We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe. Results: From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75-224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074). Conclusion: We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries.
Abstract: Background: The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency. Methods: We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe. Results: From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75–224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074). Conclusion: We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries.
