For this blog post, I’ve asked our VP Translational Science, Dr Brenda Finney, to share her thoughts on the use of SEND for data exchange in data warehouses like our Centrus platform which is built on the ToxHub database, which was previously created by the eTransafe consortium. Here’s what she had to say:
“I know that the main focus for SEND is around regulatory submission, but as a relative newbie to this format, I love to think about different ways to harness the framework of SEND. I think it has so much potential to help maintain data quality, facilitate seamless collaboration and ensure the success and credibility of scientific studies, whether for regulatory or any other R&D purpose. I think by using SEND as part of an efficient data management strategy, companies can facilitate and enhance their data warehousing and sharing capabilities. It could permit them to foster collaboration with researchers from different teams across their company or even separate institutions.
Furthermore, because of its makeup as different domains, it can allow companies to share specific portions of data with collaborators, regulators, or other stakeholders without revealing the entire dataset. This controlled sharing can help ensure confidentiality and data security, and is one of the advantages that has been leveraged in our Centrus platform to help facilitate data sharing across subscribing companies.
I think many people are starting to embrace the idea that the uniform layout makes it easier to combine and compare data, but I don’t want to forget about the magic in the metadata. Incorporation of robust metadata in SEND; like information about the study design, experimental conditions, and methodologies used, allows researchers to more deeply understand the data. Not only that, it plays a crucial role in providing the context to authenticate any comparisons being made across studies because by following a consistent format and including contextual information, researchers can easily track the origin and processing of data, reducing the risk of errors and misinterpretation. This attention to metadata ultimately enhances the credibility of research outcomes and helps ensure data integrity.
This magic extends across a wide range of study types, including both Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and non-GLP studies as well as studies on programmes that may not make it to submission. I would posit that studies on compounds that do not go forward to regulatory submission are critically important for understanding toxicology and contributing to any modelling activities. The advantage of producing SEND from non-GLP or non-submitted studies for warehousing, is that the quality control burden can be less stringent and the scale reduced to domains considered critical for the intended analysis.
So as the scientific community continues to prioritize data quality and collaborative efforts, the SEND format stands out as a powerful solution for streamlined preclinical study data management. And I would urge anyone who is thinking about how to make the best use of all of their data to consider how they could leverage the magic of the metadata for warehousing and analysis. As always, we would love to hear from you if you have questions or thoughts on this! Brenda”
I really appreciated Brenda sharing her thoughts for us and reminding us that the metadata provide much needed context for scientific decision making.
‘til next time
Marc
