A Survey of U.S Adults' Opinions about Conduct of a Nationwide Precision Medicine Initiative® Cohort Study of Genes and Environment.

OBJECTIVES: A survey of a population-based sample of U.S adults was conducted to measure their attitudes about, and inform the design of the Precision Medicine Initiative's planned national cohort study. METHODS: An online survey was conducted by GfK between May and June of 2015. The influence of different consent models on willingness to share data was examined by randomizing participants to one of eight consent scenarios. RESULTS: Of 4,777 people invited to take the survey, 2,706 responded and 2,601 (54% response rate) provided valid responses. Most respondents (79%) supported the proposed study, and 54% said they would definitely or probably participate if asked. Support for and willingness to participate in the study varied little among demographic groups; younger respondents, LGBT respondents, and those with more years of education were significantly more likely to take part if asked. The most important study incentive that the survey asked about was learning about one's own health information. Willingness to share data and samples under broad, study-by-study, menu and dynamic consent models was similar when a statement about transparency was included in the consent scenarios. Respondents were generally interested in taking part in several governance functions of the cohort study. CONCLUSIONS: A large majority of the U.S. adults who responded to the survey supported a large national cohort study. Levels of support for the study and willingness to participate were both consistent across most demographic groups. The opportunity to learn health information about one's self from the study appears to be a strong motivation to participate.

The BRAIN Initiative: developing technology to catalyse neuroscience discovery.

The evolution of the field of neuroscience has been propelled by the advent of novel technological capabilities, and the pace at which these capabilities are being developed has accelerated dramatically in the past decade. Capitalizing on this momentum, the United States launched the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative to develop and apply new tools and technologies for revolutionizing our understanding of the brain. In this article, we review the scientific vision for this initiative set forth by the National Institutes of Health and discuss its implications for the future of neuroscience research. Particular emphasis is given to its potential impact on the mapping and study of neural circuits, and how this knowledge will transform our understanding of the complexity of the human brain and its diverse array of behaviours, perceptions, thoughts and emotions.

Comparative analysis of data collection methods for individualized modeling of radiologists' visual similarity judgments in mammograms.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We conducted an observer study to investigate how the data collection method affects the efficacy of modeling individual radiologists' judgments regarding the perceptual similarity of breast masses on mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six observers of varying experience levels in breast imaging were recruited to assess the perceptual similarity of mammographic masses. The observers' subjective judgments were collected using (i) a rating method, (ii) a preference method, and (iii) a hybrid method combining rating and ranking. Personalized user models were developed with the collected data to predict observers' opinions. The relative efficacy of each data collection method was assessed based on the classification accuracy of the resulting user models. RESULTS: The average accuracy of the user models derived from data collected with the hybrid method was 55.5 ± 1.5%. The models were significantly more accurate (P < .0005) than those derived from the rating (45.3 ± 3.5%) and the preference (40.8 ± 5%) methods. On average, the rating data collection method was significantly faster than the other two methods (P < .0001). No time advantage was observed between the preference and the hybrid methods. CONCLUSIONS: A hybrid method combining rating and ranking is an intuitive and efficient way for collecting subjective similarity judgments to model human perceptual opinions with a higher accuracy than other, more commonly used data collection methods.

The NIH genetic testing registry: a new, centralized database of genetic tests to enable access to comprehensive information and improve transparency.

The National Institutes of Health Genetic Testing Registry (GTR; available online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gtr/) maintains comprehensive information about testing offered worldwide for disorders with a genetic basis. Information is voluntarily submitted by test providers. The database provides details of each test (e.g. its purpose, target populations, methods, what it measures, analytical validity, clinical validity, clinical utility, ordering information) and laboratory (e.g. location, contact information, certifications and licenses). Each test is assigned a stable identifier of the format GTR000000000, which is versioned when the submitter updates information. Data submitted by test providers are integrated with basic information maintained in National Center for Biotechnology Information's databases and presented on the web and through FTP (ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/pub/GTR/_README.html).

New models for large prospective studies: is there a better way?

Large prospective cohort studies are critical for identifying etiologic factors for disease, but they require substantial long-term research investment. Such studies can be conducted as multisite consortia of academic medical centers, combinations of smaller ongoing studies, or a single large site such as a dominant regional health-care provider. Still another strategy relies upon centralized conduct of most or all aspects, recruiting through multiple temporary assessment centers. This is the approach used by a large-scale national resource in the United Kingdom known as the "UK Biobank," which completed recruitment/examination of 503,000 participants between 2007 and 2010 within budget and ahead of schedule. A key lesson from UK Biobank and similar studies is that large studies are not simply small studies made large but, rather, require fundamentally different approaches in which "process" expertise is as important as scientific rigor. Embedding recruitment in a structure that facilitates outcome determination, utilizing comprehensive and flexible information technology, automating biospecimen processing, ensuring broad consent, and establishing essentially autonomous leadership with appropriate oversight are all critical to success. Whether and how these approaches may be transportable to the United States remain to be explored, but their success in studies such as UK Biobank makes a compelling case for such explorations to begin.

Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research.

Concerns about privacy may deter people from participating in genetic research. Recruitment and retention of biobank participants requires understanding the nature and magnitude of these concerns. Potential participants in a proposed biobank were asked about their willingness to participate, their privacy concerns, informed consent, and data sharing. A representative survey of 4659 U.S. adults was conducted. Ninety percent of respondents would be concerned about privacy, 56% would be concerned about researchers having their information, and 37% would worry that study data could be used against them. However, 60% would participate in the biobank if asked. Nearly half (48%) would prefer to provide consent once for all research approved by an oversight panel, whereas 42% would prefer to provide consent for each project separately. Although 92% would allow academic researchers to use study data, 80% and 75%, respectively, would grant access to government and industry researchers. Concern about privacy was related to lower willingness to participate only when respondents were told that they would receive $50 for participation and would not receive individual research results back. Among respondents who were told that they would receive $200 or individual research results, privacy concerns were not related to willingness. Survey respondents valued both privacy and participation in biomedical research. Despite pervasive privacy concerns, 60% would participate in a biobank. Assuring research participants that their privacy will be protected to the best of researchers' abilities may increase participants' acceptance of consent for broad research uses of biobank data by a wide range of researchers.

Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking.

The National Institutes of Health and other federal health agencies are considering establishing a national biobank to study the roles of genes and environment in health. We assessed the public's attitudes toward the proposed biobank, including preferences for providing informed consent. Sixteen focus groups were conducted, and themes arising from the focus groups were tested in a large, representative survey (n=4659) of the general population. Our research demonstrates that when considering participating in a genomic biobank, individuals want ongoing choices and control over access to their samples and information.

The Scientific Foundation for personal genomics: recommendations from a National Institutes of Health-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention multidisciplinary workshop.

The increasing availability of personal genomic tests has led to discussions about the validity and utility of such tests and the balance of benefits and harms. A multidisciplinary workshop was convened by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to review the scientific foundation for using personal genomics in risk assessment and disease prevention and to develop recommendations for targeted research. The clinical validity and utility of personal genomics is a moving target with rapidly developing discoveries but little translation research to close the gap between discoveries and health impact. Workshop participants made recommendations in five domains: (1) developing and applying scientific standards for assessing personal genomic tests; (2) developing and applying a multidisciplinary research agenda, including observational studies and clinical trials to fill knowledge gaps in clinical validity and utility; (3) enhancing credible knowledge synthesis and information dissemination to clinicians and consumers; (4) linking scientific findings to evidence-based recommendations for use of personal genomics; and (5) assessing how the concept of personal utility can affect health benefits, costs, and risks by developing appropriate metrics for evaluation. To fulfill the promise of personal genomics, a rigorous multidisciplinary research agenda is needed.