“Research works better when we speak a common language”-PRECISE-TBI.org
The ODC-TBI Editorial Board has just voted to encourage the use of a set of standard Common Data Elements (CDEs) for datasets submitted to ODC-TBI. You may have heard about CDEs recently-the NIH has put a lot of effort into developing them for clinical domains and is thinking of requiring a certain set of them across all clinical studies. Those of you who have looked at our example NIH-compliant Data Management and Sharing plan have seen that we recommend them for collecting and sharing pre-clinical data as well.
So what exactly are CDEs and why are they relevant to ODC-TBI? CDEs are a type of data standard used to promote comparable analysis and exchange of data across biomedical research settings. They represent variables that are collected in preclinical TBI experiments (e.g., species, sex, age, piston velocity, behavioral test outcomes), with specific and clear descriptors (PRECISE-TBI.org). Those specific and clear descriptors include a standard name for the variable and in what form it should be reported, e.g., age should be coded as AgeVal and recorded as an integer with a unit of time. NIH is investing in CDEs because they provide a common “language” for systematic and consistent capture of research data (https://cde.nlm.nih.gov/home), promoting data quality, data reuse, data aggregation and meta-analysis.
PRECISE-TBI has been leading the way in working with the research community to define CDEs for preclinical TBI so that we can “speak the same language” across TBI studies. Data repositories like ODC-TBI.org are important players in the drive for the adoption of CDEs, as repositories are the places where community data standards like CDEs can be enforced. ODC-TBI.org, in conjunction with PRECISE-TBI, established an Editorial Board (EB), comprising both senior and junior researchers to help us set policies around the use of standards like CDEs in ODC-TBI.org. As practicing scientists, EB members know firsthand that data requirements have pros and cons. On the one hand, adhering to community standards makes the data much easier to use and understand, promotes data harmonization across studies, and can result in the development of common tools for working with data that benefit the community. On the other hand, complying with standards can impose a burden on researchers trying to prepare their data for sharing, and given the heterogeneity of data, it may be difficult to enforce across all datasets. To strike a balance, the EB recently voted on a set of nine “required” PRECISE-TBI CDEs covering key subject and experiment level metadata, which should be included in each dataset published to the public space with a DOI. Why is “required” in quotes? When a DOI is requested, the dataset is now checked for their presence by a data validation tool and also by our curation team. But as a community repository, we are taking a collegial and collaborative approach to data standards. After our checks, we provide feedback to the authors and ask them to include these variables if available, and recommend they “speak the same language” by using the official name and form of the variable. But we won’t reject a dataset for publication outright for failing to comply. It may be that a given CDE is not relevant to a particular dataset, e.g., data resulting from a secondary analysis or the data represents legacy data that was collected before such standards were put in place. We want these data too!! Our sister site, the ODC-SCI, has employed a similar policy for pre-clinical spinal cord injury datasets, which are checked for 17 community-recommended data elements. In a recent paper, Sheoran et al. (2025) found that the inclusion of these variables increased significantly after the list of variables was included in the instructions to authors and feedback from automated validation checks provided, even without mandatory compliance. We are confident that the ODC-TBI community will respond similarly.
Ultimately, we hope the use of CDEs becomes an integral part of experiment planning, data collection and sharing in preclinical TBI. Visit PRECISE-TBI for the full listing of CDEs available, including CDEs for major TBI models and behavior tests. If the CDEs you need aren’t there, let us know! PRECISE-TBI and ODC-TBI.org are actively working on ways to make it easier for the research community to use CDEs in their laboratories by creating templates for data collection and tools to map your custom data elements to PRECISE-TBI CDEs. Stay tuned!
Cross-posted from the Open Data Commons for TBI blog
Comments