Big Data Needs Big Governance: Best Practices From Brain-CODE, the Ontario-Brain Institute’s Neuroinformatics Platform

Due to the increasing need for subject privacy, the ability to deidentify structural MR images so that they do not provide full facial detail is desirable. A program was developed that uses models of nonbrain structures for removing potentially identifying facial features. When a novel image is presented, the optimal linear transform is computed for the input volume (Fischl et al. [2002]: Neuron 33:341-355; Fischl et al. [2004]: Neuroimage 23 (Suppl 1):S69-S84). A brain mask is constructed by forming the union of all voxels with nonzero probability of being brain and then morphologically dilated. All voxels outside the mask with a nonzero probability of being a facial feature are set to 0. The algorithm was applied to 342 datasets that included two different T1-weighted pulse sequences and four different diagnoses (depressed, Alzheimer's, and elderly and young control groups). Visual inspection showed none had brain tissue removed. In a detailed analysis of the impact of defacing on skull-stripping, 16 datasets were bias corrected with N3 (Sled et al. [1998]: IEEE Trans Med Imaging 17:87-97), defaced, and then skull-stripped using either a hybrid watershed algorithm (Ségonne et al. [2004]: Neuroimage 22:1060-1075, in FreeSurfer) or Brain Surface Extractor (Sandor and Leahy [1997]: IEEE Trans Med Imaging 16:41-54; Shattuck et al. [2001]: Neuroimage 13:856-876); defacing did not appreciably influence the outcome of skull-stripping. Results suggested that the automatic defacing algorithm is robust, efficiently removes nonbrain tissue, and does not unduly influence the outcome of the processing methods utilized; in some cases, skull-stripping was improved. Analyses support this algorithm as a viable method to allow data sharing with minimal data alteration within large-scale multisite projects. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Historically, research databases have existed in isolation with no practical avenue for sharing or pooling medical data into high dimensional datasets that can be efficiently compared across databases. To address this challenge, the Ontario Brain Institute’s “Brain-CODE” is a large-scale neuroinformatics platform designed to support the collection, storage, federation, sharing and analysis of different data types across several brain disorders, as a means to understand common underlying causes of brain dysfunction and develop novel approaches to treatment. By providing researchers access to aggregated datasets that they otherwise could not obtain independently, Brain-CODE incentivizes data sharing and collaboration and facilitates analyses both within and across disorders and across a wide array of data types, including clinical, neuroimaging and molecular. The Brain-CODE system architecture provides the technical capabilities to support (1) consolidated data management to securely capture, monitor and curate data, (2) privacy and security best-practices, and (3) interoperable and extensible systems that support harmonization, integration, and query across diverse data modalities and linkages to external data sources. Brain-CODE currently supports collaborative research networks focused on various brain conditions, including neurodevelopmental disorders, cerebral palsy, neurodegenerative diseases, epilepsy and mood disorders. These programs are generating large volumes of data that are integrated within Brain-CODE to support scientific inquiry and analytics across multiple brain disorders and modalities. By providing access to very large datasets on patients with different brain disorders and enabling linkages to provincial, national and international databases, Brain-CODE will help to generate new hypotheses about the biological bases of brain disorders, and ultimately promote new discoveries to improve patient care.

In parallel with massive genomic data production, data sharing practices have rapidly expanded over the last decade. To ensure authorized access to data, access review by data access committees (DACs) has been utilized as one potential solution. Here we discuss core elements to be integrated into the fabric of access review by both established and emerging DACs in order to foster fair, efficient, and responsible access to datasets. We particularly highlight the fact that the access review process could be adversely influenced by the potential conflicts of interest of data producers, particularly when they are directly involved in DACs management. Therefore, in structuring DACs and access procedures, possible data withholding by data producers should receive thorough attention.