Landscape analysis of available European data sources amenable for machine learning and recommendations on usability for rare diseases screening-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Landscape analysis of available European data sources amenable for machine learning and recommendations on usability for rare diseases screening

Published:2023-10-23 Issue: Volume: Page:
ISSN:
Container-title:
language:
Short-container-title:

Author:

Raycheva Ralitsa¹^ORCID,Kostadinov Kostadin¹,Mitova Elena²,Iskrov Georgi¹,Stefanov Georgi³,Vakevainen Merja⁴,Elomaa Kaisa⁵,Man Yuen-Sum⁶,Gross Edith⁷,Zschüntzsch Jana⁸,Röttger Richard⁹,Stefanov Rumen¹

Affiliation:

1. Medical University of Plovdiv: Medicinski universitet-Plovdiv

2. BAPON, Institute for Rare Diseases Plovdiv

3. BAPON, Institute for Rare disease Plovdiv

4. Pfizer Biopharmaceutical Group, Medical Affairs, Helsinki

5. Takeda Oy

6. Novo Nordisk

7. EURORDIS - Rare diseases Europe

8. Department of Neurology, University Medical Center, Göttingen

9. University of Southern Denmark Department of Mathematics and Computer Science: Syddansk Universitet Institut for Matematik og Datalogi

Abstract

Abstract Background Patient registries and databases are essential tools for advancing clinical research in the area of rare diseases, as well as for enhancing patient care and healthcare planning. They are the only means of data pooling that can result in an adequate sample size for epidemiological and/or clinical research. They are crucial to determine the feasibility of clinical trials, and to promote the enrollment of patients. The primary aim of this study is a landscape analysis of available European data sources amenable to ML and their usability for Rare Diseases screening, in terms of FAIR, legal, and business considerations. Second, recommendations will be proposed to provide a better understanding of the health data ecosystem. Results In total, 330 unique replies were processed and analyzed, reflecting the same number of distinct databases (no duplicates included). In terms of geographical scope, we observed 24.2% (n = 80) national, 10.0% (n = 33) regional, 8.8% (n = 29) European, and 5.5% (n = 18) international registries coordinated in Europe. Over 80.0% (n = 269) of the databases were still active, with approximately 60.0% (n = 191) established after the year 2000 and 71.0% last collected new data in 2022. Regarding their geographical scope, European registries were associated with the highest overall FAIR adherence, while registries with regional and “other” geographical scope were ranked at the bottom of the list with the lowest proportion. Responders’ willingness to share data as a contribution to the goals of the Screen4Care project was evaluated at the end of the survey. This question was completed by 108 respondents; however, only 18 of them (16.7%) expressed a direct willingness to contribute to the project by sharing their databases. Among them, an equal split between pro-bono and paid services was observed. Conclusions The most important results of our study demonstrate not enough sufficient FAIR principles adherence and low willingness of the EU health databases to share patient information, combined with some legislation incapacities, resulting in barriers to the secondary use of data. The new EU governing structures, some already in action, are expecting to build trust in data providers and stimulate data sharing to promote accessibility and support ethical and sustainable innovation in healthcare.

Publisher

Research Square Platform LLC

Reference56 articles.

1. European Parliamentc and the council Of European Union. Decision no 1295/1999/EC of the european parliament and of the council of 29 april 1999 adopting a programme of community action on rare diseases within the framework for action in the field of public health (1999 to 2003) [Internet]. 1999. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_overview/previous_programme/rare_diseases/raredis_wpgm99_en.pdf.

2. Kölker S, Gleich F, Mütze U, Opladen T. Rare disease registries are key to evidence-based personalized medicine: Highlighting the european experience. Front Endocrinol [Internet]. 2022;13. https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffendo.2022.832063.

3. EURORDIS-homepage [Internet]. https://www.eurordis.org; Available from: https://www.eurordis.org.

4. Denis A, Mergaert L, Fostier C, Cleemput I, Simoens S. A comparative study of european rare disease and orphan drug markets. Health Policy [Internet]. 2010;97(2–3):173–9. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.healthpol.2010.05.017.

5. Lopes-Júnior LC, Ferraz VEF, Lima RAG, Schuab SIPC, Pessanha RM, Luz GS et al. Health policies for rare disease patients: A scoping review. IJERPH [Internet]. 2022;19(22):15174. https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fijerph192215174.