The Five Safes RO-Crate: FAIR Digital Objects for Trusted Research Environments for Health Data Research

Stian Soiland-Reyes; Stuart Wheater; Thomas Giles; Jonathan Couldridge; Philip Quinlan; Carole Goble

doi:10.52825/ocp.v5i.1419

Authors

Stian Soiland-Reyes University of Manchester
Stuart Wheater Arjuna Technologies https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2419-1964
Thomas Giles University of Nottingham https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1356-4289
Jonathan Couldridge University of Nottingham https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4054-1146
Philip Quinlan University of Nottingham https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3012-6646
Carole Goble University of Manchester

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52825/ocp.v5i.1419

Keywords:

RO-Crate, Trusted Research Environment, Five Safes Framework, Secure Data, Sensitive Data, HDR UK, Health Data, DARE UK

Abstract

Trusted Research Environments (TREs) are secure locations in which health and other sensitive data are placed and made available for researchers to analyse under strict controls. TRE’s in the UK operate under the Five Safes governance framework of safe data, safe people, safe projects, safe settings and safe outputs to protect data confidentiality. However, there is no standardised mechanism for streamlining the exchange of the metadata needed between analysis toolkits and TREs to follow Five Safes procedures. This lack of standardised interoperability is exacerbated when undertaking federated analysis across multiple TREs. The “Five Safes RO-Crate” digital object is a proposed approach for packaging the metadata needed for exchanging research requests and results between analysis tools and TRE providers, enabling them to operate Five Safe compliant processes. The approach has been piloted by the DARE UK TRE-FX project with commercial and open-source analysis toolkits and two health data TREs. The work will continue to be developed in Health Data Research UK’s Federated Analytics work programme and incorporated into the TRE Blueprints currently being developed by EOSC-ENTRUST European Network of Trusted Research Environments and DARE-UK. Five Safes RO-Crate is an important component of the metadata middleware necessary for implementing scalable TRE federated analysis.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

UK Health Data Research Alliance and NHSX, “Building trusted research environments – principles and best practices; towards TRE ecosystems,” HDR UK, Tech. Rep., 2021. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5767586.

E. Green and F. Ritchie, “The present and future of the Five Safes framework,” Journal of Plantation Crops, vol. 13, no. 2, Nov. 2023. DOI: 10.29012/jpc.831.

P. Stokes. “The ‘Five Safes’ – data privacy at ONS,” Accessed: Oct. 28, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2017/01/27/the-five-safes-data-privacyat-ons/.

R. Iannella, S. Villata, and Permissions Obligations Expression Working Group, “ODRL information model 2.2,” W3C, Feb. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-odrl-model-20180215/.

DARE UK. “Federated architecture blueprint,” Accessed: Oct. 28, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://dareuk.org.uk/our-work/federated-architecture-blueprint/.

OHDSI. “Standardized data: The OMOP Common Data Model.” OHDSI – Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics, Accessed: Oct. 28, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.ohdsi.org/data-standardization/.

S. Soiland-Reyes, S. Wheater, T. Giles, C. Goble, and P. Quinlan, “TRE-FX technical documentation - Five Safes RO-Crate,” DARE UK, Tech. Rep., 2023. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10376350.

S. Soiland-Reyes et al., “Packaging research artefacts with RO-Crate,” Data Science, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 97–138, Jul. 2022. DOI: 10.3233/ds-210053.

S. Soiland-Reyes, P. Sefton, S. Leo, L. J. Castro, C. Weiland, and H. Van de Sompel, “Practical webby FDOs with RO-crate and FAIR signposting: Experiences and lessons learned,” in International FAIR Digital Objects Implementation Summit 2024, vol. (this issue), TIB Open Publishing, 2024.

B. Goldacre and J. Morley, “Better, broader, safer: Using health data for research and analysis,” Department of Health and Social Care, A review commissioned by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Apr. 2022. Accessed: Oct. 28, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/better-broader-saferusing-health-data-for-research-and-analysis.

L. Nab et al., “OpenSAFELY: A platform for analysing electronic health records designed for reproducible research.,” Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, vol. 33, no. 6, e5815, Jun. 2024. DOI: 10.1002/pds.5815.

S. Leo et al., “Recording provenance of workflow runs with RO-Crate,” PLOS One, vol. 19, no. 9, e0309210, Sep. 2024. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309210.

M. D. Wilkinson et al., “The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship,” Scientific Data, vol. 3, no. 1, Mar. 2016. DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18.

E. Herrett et al., “Data Resource Profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD),”International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 827–836, Jun. 2015. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyv098.

Clinical Practice Research Datalink, CPRD Aurum september 2024, 2024. DOI: 10.48329/ZRVZ-6A47.

E. Chadwick and S. Soiland-Reyes, Rocrate-zenodo, version v0.1.1, Aug. 2024. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.13365999. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ResearchObject/rocrate-zenodo/.

G. Reilly and S. Varma, “Health Data Research Innovation Gateway,” ITNOW, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 60–63, Jun. 2021. DOI: 10.1093/itnow/bwab061.

I. Anders et al., “FAIR digital object technical overview,” Version PEN 2.0, Proposed Recommendation Full FDO Overview PEN-2.0-v2, Jan. 18, 2023. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7824714.

S. Soiland-Reyes, E. Chadwick, F. Bacall, J. M. Fern´andez, B. Gr¨uning, and H. Bayındır, “EuroScienceGateway D2.1: Reproducible FAIR Digital Objects for Workflows,” Zenodo, Deliverable, Aug. 2024. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.13225792.

H. L. Rehm et al., “GA4GH: International policies and standards for data sharing across genomic research and healthcare,” Cell Genomics, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 100 029, Nov. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.xgen.2021.100029.

M. Fiume et al., “Federated discovery and sharing of genomic data using beacons.,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 220–224, Mar. 2019. DOI: 10.1038/s41587-019-0046-x.

V. Panagi, “Rquest-omop-worker,” WorkflowHub, 2023, Common Workflow Language. DOI: 10.48546/workflowhub.workflow.471.2.

V. Panagi, Beacon-workflow, Common Workflow Language, WorkflowHub, 2024. Accessed: Oct. 28, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://workflowhub.eu/workflows/882?version=3.

J. M. Fern´andez, L. Rodr´ıguez-Navas, and S. Capella-Guti´ errez, “Secured and annotated execution of workflows with WfExS-backend,” F1000Research, 2022. DOI: 10.7490/f1000research.1119198.1.

I. Budin-Ljøsne et al., “DataSHIELD: An ethically robust solution to multiple-site individual level data analysis.,” Public health genomics, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 87–96, 2015. DOI: 10.1159/000368959.

J. Smith et al., “SACRO: Semi-automated checking of research outputs,” DARE UK, Tech. Rep., 2023. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10055365.

The Five Safes RO-Crate

FAIR Digital Objects for Trusted Research Environments for Health Data Research

Authors

DOI:

Keywords:

Abstract

Downloads

References

Downloads

Published

How to Cite

Conference Proceedings Volume

Section

License

Funding data