The systematic assessment of completeness of public metadata accompanying omics studies

Abstract

AbstractThe scientific community has accumulated enormous amounts of genomic data stored in specialized public repositories. Genomic data is easily accessible and available from public genomic repositories allowing the biomedical community to effectively share the omics datasets. However, improperly annotated or incomplete metadata accompanying the raw omics data can negatively impact the utility of shared data for secondary analysis. In this study, we perform a comprehensive analysis under 137 studies over 18,559 samples across six therapeutics fields to assess the completeness of metadata accompanying omics studies in both publication and its related online repositories across and make observations about how the process of data sharing could be made reliable. This analysis involved finding studies based on the six therapeutic fields, that are Alzheimer’s disease, acute myeloid leukemia, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, sepsis, and tuberculosis. We carefully examined the availability of metadata over nine clinical variables, that included disease condition, age, organism, sex, tissue type, ethnicity, country, mortality, and clinical severity. By comparing the metadata availability in both original publications and online repositories, we observed discrepancies in sharing the metadata. We determine that the overall availability of metadata is 72.8%, where the most complete reported phenotypes are disease condition and organism, and the least is mortality. Additionally, we examined the completeness of metadata reported separately in original publications and online repositories. The completeness of metadata from the original publication across the nine clinical phenotypes is 71.1%. In contrast, the overall completeness of metadata information from the public repositories is 48.6%. Our study is the first one to systematically assess the completeness of metadata accompanying raw data across a large number of studies and phenotypes and opens a crucial discussion about solutions to improve completeness and accessibility of metadata accompanying omics studies.