Metadata for Data dIscoverability aNd Study rEplicability in obseRVAtional Studies (MINERVA): Development and Pilot of a Metadata List and Catalogue in Europe.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pajouheshnia Romin, Gini Rosa, Gutierrez Lia, Swertz Morris A, Hyde Eleanor, Sturkenboom Miriam, Arana Alejandro, Franzoni Carla, Ehrenstein Vera, Roberto Giuseppe, Gil Miguel, Maciá Miguel Angel, Schäfer Wiebke, Haug Ulrike, Thurin Nicolas H, Lassalle Régis, Droz-Perroteau Cécile, Zaccagnino Silvia, Busto Maria Paula, Middelkoop Bas, Gembert Karin, Sanchez-Saez Francisco, Rodriguez-Bernal Clara, Sanfélix-Gimeno Gabriel, Hurtado Isabel, Acosta Manuel Barreiro-de, Poblador-Plou Beatriz, Carmona-Pírez Jonás, Gimeno-Miguel Antonio, Prados-Torres Alexandra, Schultze Anna, Jansen Ella, Herings Ron, Kuiper Josine, Locatelli Igor, Jazbar Janja, Žerovnik Špela, Kos Mitja, Smit Steven, Lind Sirje, Metspalu Andres, Simou Stefania, Hedenmalm Karin, Cochino Ana, Alcini Paolo, Kurz Xavier, Perez-Gutthann Susana
Аннотация
METHODS: A list of metadata was created from a review of existing metadata catalogues and recommendations, structured interviews, a stakeholder survey, and a technical workshop. The prototype was designed to comply with the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable), using MOLGENIS software. Metadata collection was piloted by 15 data access partners (DAPs) from across Europe.
RESULTS: A total of 442 metadata variables were defined in six domains: institutions (organizations connected to a data source); data banks (data collections sustained by an organization); data sources (collections of linkable data banks covering a common underlying population); studies; networks (of institutions); and common data models (CDMs). A total of 26 institutions were recorded in the prototype. Each DAP populated the metadata of one data source and its selected data banks. The number of data banks varied by data source; the most common data banks were hospital administrative records and pharmacy dispensation records (10 data sources each). Quantitative metadata were successfully extracted from three data sources conforming to different CDMs and entered into the prototype.
CONCLUSIONS: A metadata list was finalized, a prototype was successfully populated, and a good practice guide was developed. Setting up and maintaining a metadata catalogue on RWDSs will require substantial effort to support discoverability of data sources and reproducibility of studies in Europe.