Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Nicholas R. Anderson is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Nicholas R. Anderson.


Nature Reviews Genetics | 2012

From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research

Jane Kaye; Liam Curren; Nicholas R. Anderson; Kelly Edwards; Stephanie M. Fullerton; Nadja Kanellopoulou; David Lund; Daniel G. MacArthur; Deborah Mascalzoni; James Shepherd; Patrick L. Taylor; Sharon F. Terry; Stefan F. Winter

Advances in computing technology and bioinformatics mean that medical research is increasingly characterized by large international consortia of researchers that are reliant on large data sets and biobanks. These trends raise a number of challenges for obtaining consent, protecting participant privacy concerns and maintaining public trust. Participant-centred initiatives (PCIs) use social media technologies to address these immediate concerns, but they also provide the basis for long-term interactive partnerships. Here, we give an overview of this rapidly moving field by providing an analysis of the different PCI approaches, as well as the benefits and challenges of implementing PCIs.


Journal of Biomedical Informatics | 2012

Technical desiderata for the integration of genomic data into Electronic Health Records

Daniel R. Masys; Gail P. Jarvik; Neil F. Abernethy; Nicholas R. Anderson; George J. Papanicolaou; Dina N. Paltoo; Mark A. Hoffman; Isaac S. Kohane; Howard P. Levy

The era of Personalized Medicine, guided by individual molecular variation in DNA, RNA, expressed proteins and other forms of high volume molecular data brings new requirements and challenges to the design and implementation of Electronic Health Records (EHRs). In this article we describe the characteristics of biomolecular data that differentiate it from other classes of data commonly found in EHRs, enumerate a set of technical desiderata for its management in healthcare settings, and offer a candidate technical approach to its compact and efficient representation in operational systems.


Science Translational Medicine | 2010

Meeting the Governance Challenges of Next-Generation Biorepository Research

Stephanie M. Fullerton; Nicholas R. Anderson; Greg Guzauskas; Dena Freeman; Kelly Fryer-Edwards

Advances in biorepository research will require innovative new approaches to oversight and governance. Advances in clinical translational research have led to an explosion of interest in infrastructure development and data sharing facilitated by biorepositories of specimens and linked health information. These efforts are qualitatively different from the single-center sample collections that preceded them and pose substantial new ethics and regulatory challenges for investigators and institutions. New research governance approaches, which can address current and anticipated challenges, promote high-quality research, and provide a robust basis for ongoing research participation, are urgently required.


Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association | 2008

People and Organizational Issues in Research Systems Implementation

Joan S. Ash; Nicholas R. Anderson; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch

Knowledge about people and organizational issues pertinent to implementation and maintenance of clinical systems has grown steadily over the past fifteen years. Less is known about implementation of systems used for clinical and biomedical research. In conjunction with current National Institutes of Health Roadmap efforts that promote translational research, these issues should now be identified and addressed. During the 2007 American College of Medical Informatics Symposium, members discussed behavioral aspects of translational informatics. This article summarizes that discussion, which covered organizational issues, implications of how knowledge about clinical systems implementation can inform research systems implementation, and those issues unique to each kind of system.


International Journal of Medical Informatics | 2009

Incorporating collaboratory concepts into informatics in support of translational interdisciplinary biomedical research

E. Sally Lee; David W. McDonald; Nicholas R. Anderson; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch

Due to its complex nature, modern biomedical research has become increasingly interdisciplinary and collaborative in nature. Although a necessity, interdisciplinary biomedical collaboration is difficult. There is, however, a growing body of literature on the study and fostering of collaboration in fields such as computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) and information science (IS). These studies of collaboration provide insight into how to potentially alleviate the difficulties of interdisciplinary collaborative research. We, therefore, undertook a cross cutting study of science and engineering collaboratories to identify emergent themes. We review many relevant collaboratory concepts: (a) general collaboratory concepts across many domains: communication, common workspace and coordination, and data sharing and management, (b) specific collaboratory concepts of particular biomedical relevance: data integration and analysis, security structure, metadata and data provenance, and interoperability and data standards, (c) environmental factors that support collaboratories: administrative and management structure, technical support, and available funding as critical environmental factors, and (d) future considerations for biomedical collaboration: appropriate training and long-term planning. In our opinion, the collaboratory concepts we discuss can guide planning and design of future collaborative infrastructure by biomedical informatics researchers to alleviate some of the difficulties of interdisciplinary biomedical collaboration.


BMC Bioinformatics | 2006

On the persistence of supplementary resources in biomedical publications

Nicholas R. Anderson; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; Roger E. Bumgarner

BackgroundProviding for long-term and consistent public access to scientific data is a growing concern in biomedical research. One aspect of this problem can be demonstrated by evaluating the persistence of supplementary data associated with published biomedical papers.MethodsWe manually evaluated 655 supplementary data links extracted from PubMed abstracts published 1998–2005 (Method 1) as well as a further focused subset of 162 full-text manuscripts published within three representative high-impact biomedical journals between September and December 2004 (Method 2).ResultsFor Method 1 we found that since 2001, only 71 – 92% of supplementary data were still accessible via the links provided, with 93% of these inaccessible links occurring where supplementary data was not stored with the publishing journal. Of the manuscripts evaluated in Method 2, we found that only 83% of these links were available approximately a year after publication, with 55% of these inaccessible links were at locations outside the journal of publication.ConclusionWe conclude that if supplemental data is required to support the publication, journals policies must take-on the responsibility to accept and store such data or require that it be maintained with a credible independent institution or under the terms of a strategic data storage plan specified by the authors. We further recommend that publishers provide automated systems to ensure that supplementary links remain persistent, and that granting bodies such as the NIH develop policies and funding mechanisms to maintain long-term persistent access to these data.


Academic Medicine | 2009

Synergies and Distinctions between Computational Disciplines in Biomedical Research: Perspective from the Clinical and Translational Science Award Programs

Elmer V. Bernstam; William R. Hersh; Stephen B. Johnson; Christopher G. Chute; Hien H. Nguyen; Ida Sim; Meredith Nahm; Mark G. Weiner; Perry L. Miller; Robert P. DiLaura; Marc Overcash; Harold P. Lehmann; David Eichmann; Brian D. Athey; Richard H. Scheuermann; Nicholas R. Anderson; Justin Starren; Paul A. Harris; Jack W. Smith; Ed Barbour; Jonathan C. Silverstein; David A. Krusch; Rakesh Nagarajan; Michael J. Becich

Clinical and translational research increasingly requires computation. Projects may involve multiple computationally oriented groups including information technology (IT) professionals, computer scientists, and biomedical informaticians. However, many biomedical researchers are not aware of the distinctions among these complementary groups, leading to confusion, delays, and suboptimal results. Although written from the perspective of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) programs within academic medical centers, this article addresses issues that extend beyond clinical and translational research. The authors describe the complementary but distinct roles of operational IT, research IT, computer science, and biomedical informatics using a clinical data warehouse as a running example. In general, IT professionals focus on technology. The authors distinguish between two types of IT groups within academic medical centers: central or administrative IT (supporting the administrative computing needs of large organizations) and research IT (supporting the computing needs of researchers). Computer scientists focus on general issues of computation such as designing faster computers or more efficient algorithms, rather than specific applications. In contrast, informaticians are concerned with data, information, and knowledge. Biomedical informaticians draw on a variety of tools, including but not limited to computers, to solve information problems in health care and biomedicine. The paper concludes with recommendations regarding administrative structures that can help to maximize the benefit of computation to biomedical research within academic health centers.


Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association | 2012

Implementation of a deidentified federated data network for population-based cohort discovery

Nicholas R. Anderson; Aaron Abend; Aaron Mandel; Estella M. Geraghty; Davera Gabriel; Rob Wynden; Michael Kamerick; Kent Anderson; Julie A. Rainwater; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch

Objective The Cross-Institutional Clinical Translational Research project explored a federated query tool and looked at how this tool can facilitate clinical trial cohort discovery by managing access to aggregate patient data located within unaffiliated academic medical centers. Methods The project adapted software from the Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) program to connect three Clinical Translational Research Award sites: University of Washington, Seattle, University of California, Davis, and University of California, San Francisco. The project developed an iterative spiral software development model to support the implementation and coordination of this multisite data resource. Results By standardizing technical infrastructures, policies, and semantics, the project enabled federated querying of deidentified clinical datasets stored in separate institutional environments and identified barriers to engaging users for measuring utility. Discussion The authors discuss the iterative development and evaluation phases of the project and highlight the challenges identified and the lessons learned. Conclusion The common system architecture and translational processes provide high-level (aggregate) deidentified access to a large patient population (>5 million patients), and represent a novel and extensible resource. Enhancing the network for more focused disease areas will require research-driven partnerships represented across all partner sites.


Applied and Translational Genomics | 2012

Participant-Centric Initiatives: Tools to Facilitate Engagement In Research.

Nicholas R. Anderson; Caleb Bragg; Andrea Hartzler; Kelly Edwards

Clinical genomic research faces increasing challenges in establishing participant privacy and consent processes that facilitate meaningful choice and communication capacity for longitudinal and secondary research uses. There are an evolving range of participant-centric initiatives that combine web-based informatics tools with new models of engagement and research collaboration. These emerging initiatives may become valuable approaches to support large-scale and longitudinal research studies. We highlight and discuss four types of emerging initiatives for engaging and sustaining participation in research.


Journal of Clinical Epidemiology | 2009

Patients were more consistent in randomized trial at prioritizing childbirth preferences using graphic-numeric than verbal formats

Karen Eden; James G. Dolan; Nancy Perrin; Dundar F. Kocaoglu; Nicholas R. Anderson; James Case; Jeanne-Marie Guise

OBJECTIVEnWe developed an evidence-based decision aid to help women with a prior cesarean to prioritize their childbirth preferences related to a future birth. Because there was uncertainty about which scale format would assist the patients in being most consistent in prioritizing preferences in a multiattribute decision model, we compared a graphic-numeric scale with a text-anchored scale.nnnSTUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGnNinety-six postnatal women with a prior cesarean were randomized to use 1 of 2 preference scale formats in a computerized childbirth decision aid. We measured the level of inconsistency (intransitivity) when patients prioritized their childbirth preferences and clarity of values before and after using the decision aid.nnnRESULTSnWhen the trade-offs involved risk, women were more consistent when using graphic-numeric than text-anchored formats (P=0.015). They prioritized safety to their baby as 4 times more important than any other decision factor including safety to self. Both groups reduced unclear childbirth values over time (P<0.001). Women who over-used the extreme ends of the scale when evaluating risk were more likely to be inconsistent (P<0.001).nnnCONCLUSIONnPatients were more consistent in making trade-offs involving risk using graphic-numeric formats than text-anchored formats to measure patient preferences.

Collaboration


Dive into the Nicholas R. Anderson's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Kelly Edwards

University of Washington

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Davera Gabriel

University of California

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Mark G. Weiner

University of Pennsylvania

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Rob Wynden

University of California

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Bill Howe

University of Washington

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Dan Suciu

University of Washington

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge