Difference between revisions of "User:Shawndouglas/sandbox/sublevel12"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(302 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 8: Line 8:
==Sandbox begins below==
==Sandbox begins below==
<div class="nonumtoc">__TOC__</div>
<div class="nonumtoc">__TOC__</div>
[[File:|right|450px]]
[[File:FAIRResourcesGraphic AustralianResearchDataCommons 2018.png|right|520px]]
'''Title''': ''How does a LIMS help a food and beverage business better address the core principles of quality and safety management?''
'''Title''': ''What are the potential implications of the FAIR data principles to laboratory informatics applications?''


'''Author for citation''': Shawn E. Douglas
'''Author for citation''': Shawn E. Douglas
Line 15: Line 15:
'''License for content''': [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International]
'''License for content''': [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International]


'''Publication date''': January 2024
'''Publication date''': May 2024


==Introduction==
==Introduction==
https://www.limswiki.org/index.php/Journal:Infrastructure_tools_to_support_an_effective_radiation_oncology_learning_health_system


This brief topical article will examine


==The core principles of food and beverage quality and safety management==
==The "FAIR-ification" of research objects and software==
[[Hazard analysis and critical control points]] (HACCP) methods remain one of the obvious go-to tools for food and beverage businesses.
First discussed during a 2014 FORCE-11 workshop dedicated to "overcoming data discovery and reuse obstacles," the [[Journal:The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship|FAIR data principles]] were published by Wilkinson ''et al.'' in 2016 as a stakeholder collaboration driven to see research "objects" (i.e., research data and [[information]] of all shapes and formats) become more universally findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) by both machines and people.<ref name="WilkinsonTheFAIR16">{{Cite journal |last=Wilkinson |first=Mark D. |last2=Dumontier |first2=Michel |last3=Aalbersberg |first3=IJsbrand Jan |last4=Appleton |first4=Gabrielle |last5=Axton |first5=Myles |last6=Baak |first6=Arie |last7=Blomberg |first7=Niklas |last8=Boiten |first8=Jan-Willem |last9=da Silva Santos |first9=Luiz Bonino |last10=Bourne |first10=Philip E. |last11=Bouwman |first11=Jildau |date=2016-03-15 |title=The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201618 |journal=Scientific Data |language=en |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=160018 |doi=10.1038/sdata.2016.18 |issn=2052-4463 |pmc=PMC4792175 |pmid=26978244}}</ref> The authors released the FAIR principles while recognizing that "one of the grand challenges of data-intensive science ... is to improve knowledge discovery through assisting both humans and their computational agents in the discovery of, access to, and integration and analysis of task-appropriate scientific data and other scholarly digital objects."<ref name="WilkinsonTheFAIR16" />


In the 2023 book ''Food Safety Management: A Practical Guide for the Food Industry'', Overbosch and Blanchard break down the concept of food and beverage quality and safety management into a set of seven principles that must be applied in order to best achieve it. These seven principles address<ref name="OverboschPrinc23">{{cite book |last=Overbosch, P.; Blanchard, S. |year=2023 |editor-last=Andersen, V.; Lelieveld, H.; Motarjemi, Y. |title=Food Safety Management: A Practical Guide for the Food Industry |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3TpwEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover |chapter=Principles and Systems for Quality and Food Safety Management |edition=2nd |publisher=Elsevier, Inc |pages=497–512 |isbn=9780128200131}}</ref>:
Since 2016, other research stakeholders have taken to publishing their thoughts about how the FAIR principles apply to their fields of study and practice<ref name="NIHPubMedSearch">{{cite web |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=fair+data+principles |title=fair data principles |work=PubMed Search |publisher=National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine |accessdate=30 April 2024}}</ref>, including in ways beyond what perhaps was originally imagined by Wilkinson ''et al.''. For example, multiple authors have examined whether or not the software used in scientific endeavors itself can be considered a research object worth being developed and managed in tandem with the FAIR data principles.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hasselbring |first=Wilhelm |last2=Carr |first2=Leslie |last3=Hettrick |first3=Simon |last4=Packer |first4=Heather |last5=Tiropanis |first5=Thanassis |date=2020-02-25 |title=From FAIR research data toward FAIR and open research software |url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/itit-2019-0040/html |journal=it - Information Technology |language=en |volume=62 |issue=1 |pages=39–47 |doi=10.1515/itit-2019-0040 |issn=2196-7032}}</ref><ref name="GruenpeterFAIRPlus20">{{Cite web |last=Gruenpeter, M. |date=23 November 2020 |title=FAIR + Software: Decoding the principles |url=https://www.fairsfair.eu/sites/default/files/FAIR%20%2B%20software.pdf |format=PDF |publisher=FAIRsFAIR “Fostering FAIR Data Practices In Europe” |accessdate=30 April 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Barker |first=Michelle |last2=Chue Hong |first2=Neil P. |last3=Katz |first3=Daniel S. |last4=Lamprecht |first4=Anna-Lena |last5=Martinez-Ortiz |first5=Carlos |last6=Psomopoulos |first6=Fotis |last7=Harrow |first7=Jennifer |last8=Castro |first8=Leyla Jael |last9=Gruenpeter |first9=Morane |last10=Martinez |first10=Paula Andrea |last11=Honeyman |first11=Tom |date=2022-10-14 |title=Introducing the FAIR Principles for research software |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01710-x |journal=Scientific Data |language=en |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=622 |doi=10.1038/s41597-022-01710-x |issn=2052-4463 |pmc=PMC9562067 |pmid=36241754}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Patel |first=Bhavesh |last2=Soundarajan |first2=Sanjay |last3=Ménager |first3=Hervé |last4=Hu |first4=Zicheng |date=2023-08-23 |title=Making Biomedical Research Software FAIR: Actionable Step-by-step Guidelines with a User-support Tool |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02463-x |journal=Scientific Data |language=en |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=557 |doi=10.1038/s41597-023-02463-x |issn=2052-4463 |pmc=PMC10447492 |pmid=37612312}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Du |first=Xinsong |last2=Dastmalchi |first2=Farhad |last3=Ye |first3=Hao |last4=Garrett |first4=Timothy J. |last5=Diller |first5=Matthew A. |last6=Liu |first6=Mei |last7=Hogan |first7=William R. |last8=Brochhausen |first8=Mathias |last9=Lemas |first9=Dominick J. |date=2023-02-06 |title=Evaluating LC-HRMS metabolomics data processing software using FAIR principles for research software |url=https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11306-023-01974-3 |journal=Metabolomics |language=en |volume=19 |issue=2 |pages=11 |doi=10.1007/s11306-023-01974-3 |issn=1573-3890}}</ref> Researchers quickly recognized that any planning around updating processes and systems to make research objects more FAIR would have to be tailored to specific research contexts, recognize that digital research objects go beyond data and information, and recognize "the specific nature of software" and not consider it "just data."<ref name="GruenpeterFAIRPlus20" /> The end result has been applying the core concepts of FAIR but differently from data, with the added context of research software being more than just data, requiring more nuance and a different type of planning from applying FAIR to digital data and information.


*Hygiene in the workplace,
A 2019 survey by Europe's FAIRsFAIR found that researchers seeking and re-using relevant research software on the internet faced multiple challenges, including understanding and/or maintaining the necessary software environment and its dependencies, finding sufficient documentation, struggling with accessibility and licensing issues, having the time and skills to install and/or use the software, finding quality control of the source code lacking, and having an insufficient (or non-existent) software sustainability and management plan.<ref name="GruenpeterFAIRPlus20" /> These challenges highlight the importance of software to researchers and other stakeholders, and the roll FAIR has in better ensuring such software is findable, interoperable, and reusable, which in turn better ensures researchers' software-driven research is repeatable (by the same research team, with the same experimental setup), reproducible (by a different research team, with the same experimental setup), and replicable (by a different research team, with a different experimental setup).<ref name="GruenpeterFAIRPlus20" />
*Prevention and reduction of risks (through HACCP),
*Reliability of processes and equipment,
*Consistency of products and processes to their specifications,
*Traceability of products and ingredients,
*Relevance of products to the customer or consumer, and
*Transparent and accountable integrity of products and ingredients.


For the purposes of food and beverage quality and safety management, hygiene management can be understood as the process of identifying and shrinking down the list of "realistic hazards" in development, production, and packaging into a manageable yet robust set of preventable and eliminable risks that either get addressed up-front (the easier risks) or individually identified and managed through HACCP (the more difficult risks).<ref name="OverboschPrinc23" /> Preventing illness, the introduction of foreign material, and the introduction of allergens are generally the domain of hygiene management, backed by standardized approaches found with, for example, ISO/TS 22002-1:2009 ''Prerequisite programmes on food safety - Part 1: Food manufacturing'', EN 15593:2008 ''Packaging - Management of hygiene in the production of packaging for foodstuffs - Requirements'', and Codex Alimentarius CXC 1-1968 ''General Principles of Food Hygiene''.<ref name="OverboschPrinc23" /><ref name="AriostiManag16&quot;">{{cite book |year=2016 |editor-last=Lelieveld |editor-first=Huub |editor2-last=Holah |editor2-first=John |editor3-last=Gabrić |editor3-first=Domagoj |author=Ariosti, A. |chapter=Chapter 11: Managing Contamination Risks from Packaging Materials |title=Handbook of hygiene control in the food industry |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/mediawiki/oclc/959892242 |series=Woodhead Publishing in food science, technology and nutrition |edition=Second edition |pages=147–177 |publisher=Woodhead Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier |place=Amsterdam |isbn=978-0-08-100155-4 |oclc=959892242}}</ref>
At this point, the topic of what "research software" represents must be addressed further, and, unsurprisingly, it's not straightforward. Ask 20 researchers what "research software" is, and you may get 20 different opinions. Some definitions can be more objectively viewed as too narrow, while others may be viewed as too broad, with some level of controversy inherent in any mutual discussion.<ref name="GruenpeterDefining21">{{Cite journal |last=Gruenpeter, Morane |last2=Katz, Daniel S. |last3=Lamprecht, Anna-Lena |last4=Honeyman, Tom |last5=Garijo, Daniel |last6=Struck, Alexander |last7=Niehues, Anna |last8=Martinez, Paula Andrea |last9=Castro, Leyla Jael |last10=Rabemanantsoa, Tovo |last11=Chue Hong, Neil P. |date=2021-09-13 |title=Defining Research Software: a controversial discussion |url=https://zenodo.org/record/5504016 |journal=Zenodo |doi=10.5281/zenodo.5504016}}</ref><ref name="JulichWhatIsRes24">{{cite web |url=https://www.fz-juelich.de/en/rse/about-rse/what-is-research-software |title=What is Research Software? |work=JuRSE, the Community of Practice for Research Software Engineering |publisher=Forschungszentrum Jülich |date=13 February 2024 |accessdate=30 April 2024}}</ref><ref name="vanNieuwpoortDefining24">{{Cite journal |last=van Nieuwpoort |first=Rob |last2=Katz |first2=Daniel S. |date=2023-03-14 |title=Defining the roles of research software |url=https://upstream.force11.org/defining-the-roles-of-research-software |language=en |doi=10.54900/9akm9y5-5ject5y}}</ref> In 2021, as part of the FAIRsFAIR initiative, Gruenpeter ''et al.'' made a good-faith effort to define "research software" with the feedback of multiple stakeholders. Their efforts resulted in this definition<ref name="GruenpeterDefining21" />:


While addressing hygiene management is in part a matter of addressing a specific set of risks, more broadly food and beverage businesses must address a wide variety of other risks beyond hygiene. This is where HACCP fully comes into play. The [[Food and Drug Administration|U.S. Food and Drug Administration]] (FDA) describes HACCP as "a management system in which food safety is addressed through the analysis and control of biological, chemical, and physical hazards from raw material production, procurement and handling, to manufacturing, distribution and consumption of the finished product."<ref name="FDAHACCP22">{{cite web |url=https://www.fda.gov/food/guidance-regulation-food-and-dietary-supplements/hazard-analysis-critical-control-point-haccp |title=Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) |publisher=U.S. Food and Drug Administration |date=25 February 2022 |accessdate=19 January 2024}}</ref> As the definition notes, this systems is meant to address a variety of risks from start to finish. However, standards like ISO 22000 that dictate certification to HACCP don't necessarily point to specific hazards; this is left up to the implementers of HACCP systems to do their due diligence and select the most appropriate hazards (i.e., having appropriate specificity and relevancy) and describe how they will be measured and enforced. (In other words, just because HACCP is in place doesn't mean it will be effective.)<ref name="OverboschPrinc23" />
<blockquote>Research software includes source code files, algorithms, scripts, computational workflows, and executables that were created during the research process, or for a research purpose. Software components (e.g., operating systems, libraries, dependencies, packages, scripts, etc.) that are used for research but were not created during, or with a clear research intent, should be considered "software [used] in research" and not research software. This differentiation may vary between disciplines. The minimal requirement for achieving computational reproducibility is that all the computational components (i.e., research software, software used in research, documentation, and hardware) used during the research are identified, described, and made accessible to the extent that is possible.</blockquote>


Processes and equipment must perform in a predictable manner, with attention paid to their regular review and maintenance. Deficiencies here can originate from lack of appropriate preventive maintenance, non-thorough process design that doesn't imagine "worst case scenarios," and insufficient controls to demonstrate processes and equipment are working as they should.<ref name="OverboschPrinc23" /> A lack of focus on reliability can lead to inefficiencies, spoilage, and decreased production.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Tsarouhas |first=Panagiotis |date=2012-11 |title=Reliability, availability and maintainability analysis in food production lines: a review |url=https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2012.03073.x |journal=International Journal of Food Science & Technology |language=en |volume=47 |issue=11 |pages=2243–2251 |doi=10.1111/j.1365-2621.2012.03073.x |issn=0950-5423}}</ref> The focus on reliability can also tie into the prior principle of risk prevention and reduction, whereas risk and reliability modelling can go hand-in-hand. Proper modelling around a framework that identifies critical equipment with high failure rates and modifies maintenance plans to address those rates can in turn improve quality, safety, and availability.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Soltanali |first=Hamzeh |last2=Khojastehpour |first2=Mehdi |last3=Torres Farinha |first3=José |date=2023-03-04 |title=An improved risk and reliability framework-based maintenance planning for food processing systems |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16843703.2022.2093565 |journal=Quality Technology & Quantitative Management |language=en |volume=20 |issue=2 |pages=256–278 |doi=10.1080/16843703.2022.2093565 |issn=1684-3703}}</ref>
Note that while the definition primarily recognizes software created during the research process, software created (whether by the research group, other open-source software developers outside the organization, or even commercial software developers) "for a research purpose" outside the actual research process is also recognized as research software. This notably can lead to disagreement about whether a proprietary, commercial spreadsheet or [[laboratory information management system]] (LIMS) offering that conducts analyses and visualizations of research data can genuinely be called research software, or simply classified as software used in research. van Nieuwpoort and Katz further elaborated on this concept, at least indirectly, by formally defining the roles of research software in 2023. Their definition of the various roles of research software—without using terms such as "open-source," "commercial," or "proprietary"—essentially further defined what research software is<ref name="vanNieuwpoortDefining24" />:


Product and process consistency—such that variation from the proper specification is limited—is also important to the food and beverage business. Of course, consistency borne from specification and adherence to it requires that the specification is relevant, specific, precise, and realistic to the intended product or process, while maintaining appropriate goals and symmetrical limits, as well as ensuring process capability. Without these considerations in place, consistent product and process control is unachievable.<ref name="OverboschPrinc23" /> When they are properly enacted in a careful and systematic way to reduce variability, waste reduction, higher quality, and increased customer satisfaction are real outcomes. Laboratories and [[quality control]] testing play an obvious role here.
*Research software is a component of our instruments.
*Research software is the instrument.
*Research software analyzes research data.
*Research software presents research results.
*Research software assembles or integrates existing components into a working whole.
*Research software is infrastructure or an underlying tool.
*Research software facilitates distinctively research-oriented collaboration.


Traceability is a vital principal, especially in the scope of regulatory compliance. From edible products derived from ''[[Cannabis]]'' constituents to bottled water, an approach to traceability that considers "where did it come from, where is it within our premises, and where did it go?" is required to better ensure public safety. Labels that state the region or country of origin involve traceability aspects, as do product recalls and withdraws. Again, laboratory testing that involves durable [[chain of custody]] plays an important role here, particularly in maintaining certified marks for characteristics like "organic" of "GMO-free."<ref name="OverboschPrinc23" /> The U.S. FDA's Food Safety Modernization Act places additional record-keeping demands on food and beverage businesses<ref name="FDATracking 22">{{cite web |url=https://www.fda.gov/food/new-era-smarter-food-safety/tracking-and-tracing-food |title=Tracking and Tracing of Food |publisher=U.S. Food and Drug Administration |date=15 November 2022 |accessdate=19 January 2024}}</ref>, making the principle of traceability practically unavoidable.
When considering these definitions<ref name="GruenpeterDefining21" /><ref name="vanNieuwpoortDefining24" /> of research software and their adoption by other entities<ref name="F1000Open24">{{cite web |url=https://www.f1000.com/resources-for-researchers/open-research/open-source-software-code/ |title=Open source software and code |publisher=F1000 Research Ltd |date=2024 |accessdate=30 April 2024}}</ref>, it would appear that at least in part some [[laboratory informatics]] software—whether open-source or commercially proprietary—fills these roles in academic, military, and industry research laboratories of many types. In particular, [[electronic laboratory notebook]]s (ELNs) like open-source [[Jupyter Notebook]] or proprietary ELNs from commercial software developers fill the role of analyzing and visualizing research data, including developing molecular models for new promising research routes.<ref name="vanNieuwpoortDefining24" /> Even more advanced LIMS solutions that go beyond simply collating, auditing, securing, and reporting analytical results could conceivably fall under the umbrella of research software, particularly if many of the analytical, integration, and collaboration tools required in modern research facilities are included in the LIMS.


When discussing the principle of "relevance," the adage of "listen to your customer" comes to mind. In the scope of R&D, this represents the intended audience, from which surveys, panels, and laboratory techniques work towards developing a product that the intended customer has multi-faceted interest in consuming. In the scope of already released product, customer feedback in the form of satisfaction surveys and directed complaint (and compliment) collection systems are used (though failure rates and relative indifference to shortcomings can't necessarily be effectively gleaned from such tools).<ref name="OverboschPrinc23" /> Inevitably, whether a new product or current one, staying in touch with consumer expectations (which increasingly see consumers looking for safer foods with recognizable traceability statements, certification marks, and laboratory-based [[Certificate of analysis|certificates of analysis]])<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Lin |first=Paohui |last2=Tsai |first2=Hsientang |last3=Ho |first3=Tzuya |date=2020-08-31 |title=Food Safety Gaps between Consumers’ Expectations and Perceptions: Development and Verification of a Gap-Assessment Tool |url=https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/17/6328 |journal=International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health |language=en |volume=17 |issue=17 |pages=6328 |doi=10.3390/ijerph17176328 |issn=1660-4601 |pmc=PMC7503573 |pmid=32878088}}</ref> is a strong aspect of the principle of relevance.
Ultimately, assuming that some laboratory informatics software can be considered research software and not just "software used in research," it's tough not to arrive at some deeper implications of research organizations' increasing need for FAIR data objects and software, particularly for laboratory informatics software and the developers of it.


Finally, customers and consumers demand quality from food and beverage products and their ingredients, and transparent and accountable integrity begets quality.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Weiner |first=Edith |last2=Brown |first2=Arnold |date= |year=2006 |title=Future think: How to think clearly in a time of change |url=https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/future-think-how/013185674X/ |chapter=Chapter 8: Integrity Begets Quality |publisher=Pearson Prentice Hall |place=Upper Saddle River, NJ |pages=105–16 |isbn=978-0-13-185674-5}}</ref> In the scope of food and beverage development and production, Overbosch and Blanchard says that this focus on transparent and accountable integrity "means that an acceptable level of transparency must be provided about all relevant parameters and conditions, related to the [other] principles mentioned above, batch by batch."<ref name="OverboschPrinc23" /> This level of transparency is also linked to traceability; traceability systems will fail without the appropriate level of transparency. The deeply proprietary nature of some processes and such may seemingly get in the way of transparency, and as a result a direct-to-the-source approach may emerge, giving the organization less complexity and a clearer route to accountability to its customers.<ref name="OverboschPrinc23" />
==Implications of the FAIR concept to laboratory informatics software==
===The global FAIR initiative affects, and even benefits, commercial laboratory informatics research software developers as much as it does academic and institutional ones===
To be clear, there is undoubtedly a difference in the software development approach of "homegrown" research software by academics and institutions, and the more streamlined and experienced approach of commercial software development houses as applied to research software. Moynihan of Invenia Technical Computing described the difference in software development approaches thusly in 2020, while discussing the concept of "research software engineering"<ref name="MoynihanTheHitch20">{{cite web |url=https://invenia.github.io/blog/2020/07/07/software-engineering/ |title=The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Research Software Engineering: From PhD to RSE |author=Moynihan, G. |work=Invenia Blog |publisher=Invenia Technical Computing Corporation |date=07 July 2020}}</ref>:


==How a LIMS contributes to better addressing these principles==
<blockquote>Since the environment and incentives around building academic research software are very different to those of industry, the workflows around the former are, in general, not guided by the same engineering practices that are valued in the latter. That is to say: there is a difference between what is important in writing software for research, and for a user-focused software product. Academic research software prioritizes scientific correctness and flexibility to experiment above all else in pursuit of the researchers’ end product: published papers. Industry software, on the other hand, prioritizes maintainability, robustness, and testing, as the software (generally speaking) is the product. However, the two tracks share many common goals as well, such as catering to “users” [and] emphasizing performance and reproducibility, but most importantly both ventures are collaborative. Arguably then, both sets of principles are needed to write and maintain high-quality research software.</blockquote>
Upon reviewing those seven principles of food and beverage quality and safety management, it's clear that they are largely enterprise-wide principles affecting the multiple departments and branches of the enterprise, including any in-house laboratory. Additionally, it's somewhat difficult to tie each principle to the laboratory-based activities of the industry. (This is particularly true of a business that subcontracts out laboratory work to a third-party. However, that food and beverage business will likely want to vet any third-party laboratory to ensure it's capable of operating in sympathy with the seven principles of quality and safety management). To be sure, a [[laboratory information management system]] (LIMS) is a laboratory-specific piece of software that, when purpose-built and mindfully used, can still have some broader enterprise applicability, yet it's not a "does everything" type of [[informatics]] solution.  


Keeping in mind the intended function of a LIMS, as well as the diverse approaches to laboratory-based R&D and quality testing of food and beverages, there are undoubtedly ways that a LIMS can help a food and beverage laboratory—and the overall business that employs it—address the seven principles of food and beverage quality and safety management. One example of LIMS functionality that can help the lab and overall business better address all seven principles is the LIMS' document management tools. From [[quality management system]]s (QMSs) and food safety management systems (FSMSs) to policy and procedure (P&P) and laboratory safety manuals, a wide variety of documents must be created, distributed, maintained, and updated. These documents will need to be highly available to not only laboratory personnel but also other stakeholders in the laboratory's R&D and analytical processes. They will also need to be version controlled and archivable for both internal policy and external regulatory and accreditation requirements. A well-developed LIMS provides this functionality and more to ensure documentation is secure and available to authorized personnel in a timely fashion.
This brings us to our first point: the application of small-scale, FAIR-driven academic research software engineering practices and elements to the larger development of more commercial laboratory informatics software, and vice versa with the application of commercial-scale development practices to small FAIR-focused academic and institutional research software engineering efforts, has the potential to help better support all research laboratories using both independently-developed and commercial research software.  


A LIMS can help the lab and overall business better address these principles in other ways too:
The concept of the research software engineer (RSE) began to take full form in 2012, and since then universities and institutions of many types have formally developed their own RSE groups and academic programs.<ref name="WoolstonWhySci22">{{Cite journal |last=Woolston |first=Chris |date=2022-05-31 |title=Why science needs more research software engineers |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01516-2 |journal=Nature |language=en |pages=d41586–022–01516-2 |doi=10.1038/d41586-022-01516-2 |issn=0028-0836}}</ref><ref name="KITRSE@KIT24">{{cite web |url=https://www.rse-community.kit.edu/index.php |title=RSE@KIT |publisher=Karlsruhe Institute of Technology |date=20 February 2024 |accessdate=01 May 2024}}</ref><ref name="PUPurdueCenter">{{cite web |url=https://www.rcac.purdue.edu/rse |title=Purdue Center for Research Software Engineering |publisher=Purdue University |date=2024 |accessdate=01 May 2024}}</ref> RSEs range from pure software developers with little knowledge of a given research discipline, to scientific researchers just beginning to learn how to develop software for their research project(s). While in the past, broadly speaking, researchers often cobbled together research software with less a focus on quality and reproducibility and more on getting their research published, today's push for FAIR data and software by academic journals, institutions, and other researchers seeking to collaborate has placed a much greater focus on the concept of "better software, better research."<ref name="WoolstonWhySci22" /><ref name="CohenTheFour21">{{Cite journal |last=Cohen |first=Jeremy |last2=Katz |first2=Daniel S. |last3=Barker |first3=Michelle |last4=Chue Hong |first4=Neil |last5=Haines |first5=Robert |last6=Jay |first6=Caroline |date=2021-01 |title=The Four Pillars of Research Software Engineering |url=https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8994167/ |journal=IEEE Software |volume=38 |issue=1 |pages=97–105 |doi=10.1109/MS.2020.2973362 |issn=0740-7459}}</ref> Elaborating on that concept, Cohen ''et al.'' add that "ultimately, good research software can make the difference between valid, sustainable, reproducible research outputs and short-lived, potentially unreliable or erroneous outputs."<ref name="CohenTheFour21" />


*'''Hygiene''': As noted prior, hygiene management is backed by a number of standards. ISO/TS 22002-1:2009 ''Prerequisite programmes on food safety - Part 1: Food manufacturing'' makes numerous requests of the food manufacturer, including its laboratories. It asks that "test facilities shall be controlled to minimize risk of product contamination," and that specifically microbiology labs "be designed, located and operated so as to prevent contamination of people, plant and products."<ref name="ISO/TS2202-1_09">{{cite web |url=https://www.iso.org/standard/44001.html |title=ISO/TS 22002-1:2009 ''Prerequisite programmes on food safety - Part 1: Food manufacturing'' |publisher=International Organization for Standardization |date=December 2009 |accessdate=19 January 2024}}</ref> The control and operation of these labs is in some capacity up to the business or laboratory manager, but the LIMS can assist the lab in these efforts by housing appropriate documentation, maintaining training records, logging metadata for laboratory activities, and enforcing process steps in the analytical workflow that are standardized to limit contamination. Additionally, any environmental control test results (per the standard, "the effectiveness of measures taken to protect against potential contaminants shall be periodically reviewed"<ref name="ISO/TS2202-1_09" />) and certificates of analysis associated with product batches can be managed, maintained, and audited from within the LIMS.
The concept of [[software quality management]] (SQM) has traditionally not been lost on professional, commercial software development businesses. Good SQM practices have been less prevalent in homegrown research software development; however, the expanded adoption of FAIR data and FAIR software approaches has shifted the focus on to the repeatability, reproducibility, and interoperability of research results and data produced by a more sustainable research software. The adoption of FAIR by academic and institutional research labs not only brings commercial SQM and other software development approaches into their workflow, but also gives commercial laboratory informatics software developers an opportunity to embrace many aspects of the FAIR approach to laboratory research practices, including lessons learned and development practices from the growing number of RSEs. This doesn't mean commercial developers are going to suddenly take an open-source approach to their code, and it doesn't mean academic and institutional research labs are going to give up the benefits of the open-source paradigm as applied to research software.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hasselbring |first=Wilhelm |last2=Carr |first2=Leslie |last3=Hettrick |first3=Simon |last4=Packer |first4=Heather |last5=Tiropanis |first5=Thanassis |date=2020-02-25 |title=From FAIR research data toward FAIR and open research software |url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/itit-2019-0040/html |journal=it - Information Technology |language=en |volume=62 |issue=1 |pages=39–47 |doi=10.1515/itit-2019-0040 |issn=2196-7032}}</ref> However, as Moynihan noted, both research software development paradigms stand to gain from the shift to more FAIR data and software.<ref name="MoynihanTheHitch20" /> Additionally, if commercial laboratory informatics vendors want to continue to competitively market relevant and sustainable research software to research labs, they frankly have little choice but to commit extra resources to learning about the application of FAIR principles to their offerings tailored to those labs.
*'''Risk management via HACCP''': The HACCP method of risk management is critical to modern food and beverage businesses (and is an influence on [[ISO/IEC 17025|ISO/IEC 17025:2017]] ''General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories''). While HACCP addresses risk beyond those posed from within and adjacent to the laboratory, as the prior mentioned ISO/TS 22002-1:2009 alludes to, the control and operation of labs to minimize product contamination risk is indeed a strong risk to consider. The lab's activities within, as well as its analyses related to what happens elsewhere in the research or manufacturing facility, are impacted by HACCP. Some LIMS vendors have recognized this and integrated support for building HACCP steps into laboratory workflows. In some cases this may be as sophisticated as allowing the user to diagram HACCP in their lab or facility as a visualization tool.<ref name="LWOptimizing22">{{cite web |url=https://www.labware.com/blog/lims-7-steps-of-haccp |title=Optimizing Food Safety with LIMS HACCP Integration |publisher=LabWare, Inc |date=10 January 2022 |accessdate=19 January 2022}}</ref>
 
*'''Reliability''': Of course, a manufacturing facility's entire set of automated and semi-automated manufacturing systems isn't going to be fed into a LIMS. However, reliability of processes and equipment doesn't stop at the laboratory's entrance; the food and beverage laboratory must also have a strong focus on this principle. Here a LIMS shines, allowing the lab to integrate most of its analytical equipment with the LIMS to "talk" with the equipment. Errors and failure of integrated instruments can be logged and tracked in the LIMS, and any faulty instrument can even be made unavailable from current and future testing from within the LIMS. Additionally, maintenance records can be kept and made reviewable by personnel and auditors. And in a growing trend of incorporating some elements of [[artificial intelligence]]  or [[machine learning]] tools into a LIMS, predictive maintenance routines can be run to better limit analytical downtime.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Karthik |first=T S |last2=Kamala |first2=B |date=2021-10-01 |title=Cloud based AI approach for predictive maintenance and failure prevention |url=https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2054/1/012014 |journal=Journal of Physics: Conference Series |volume=2054 |issue=1 |pages=012014 |doi=10.1088/1742-6596/2054/1/012014 |issn=1742-6588}}</ref> Finally, the safety and quality of a developed, manufactured, or reformulated food or beverage product is only as good as the analytical and quality control testing behind it. The accuracy and reliability of the lab's results are paramount, and a purpose-built LIMS used by properly trained personnel can positively benefit in better ensuring result reliability and accuracy.<ref>{{Citation |last=Famili |first=Parsa |last2=Cleary |first2=Susan |date=2022-03-09 |editor-last=Huynh‐Ba |editor-first=Kim |title=Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) and Electronic Data |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119680475.ch10 |work=Analytical Testing for the Pharmaceutical GMP Laboratory |language=en |edition=1 |publisher=Wiley |pages=345–373 |doi=10.1002/9781119680475.ch10 |isbn=978-1-119-12091-9 |accessdate=2024-01-19}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Zhang |first=Ping |last2=Liu |first2=Binjie |date=2023 |title=Design and Implementation of LIMS System for Small and Medium-sized Discrete Manufacturing Enterprise |url=http://eudl.eu/doi/10.4108/eai.24-2-2023.2330696 |journal=Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Engineering Management and Information Science, EMIS 2023, February 24-26, 2023, Chengdu, China |language=en |publisher=EAI |place=Chengdu, People's Republic of China |doi=10.4108/eai.24-2-2023.2330696 |isbn=978-1-63190-405-9}}</ref>
===The focus on data types and metadata within the scope of FAIR is shifting how laboratory informatics software developers and RSEs make their research software and choose their database approaches===
*'''Consistency''': As noted above, laboratories play an important role in the overall food and beverage business' goal towards more consistent products and processes. Through their quality testing of ingredients and products at various points along the manufacturing chain, a laboratory's testing can identify unexpected contaminants or deficiencies in a manufacturing process. Tangentially, the laboratory conducting this quality testing—as well as the R&D laboratory attempting to get its formulations right in as few steps as possible—ideally desires its processes and products (i.e., their analytical results) to also be consistent. Here, a LIMS helps by enforcing workflow steps within the laboratory based on a standard method, enforcing specification limits on results, providing mandatory review stops on an analysis, and validating results. Labs compliant to ISO/IEC 17025 and using a LIMS that [[LIMS FAQ:What are the key elements of a LIMS to better comply with ISO/IEC 17025?|addresses the needs of an ISO/IEC 17025 lab]] should—by extension of ISO/IEC 17025 addressing consistent operations as a core requirement of meeting the standard<ref name="DouglasHowDoesISO23">{{cite web |url=https://www.limswiki.org/index.php/LIMS_FAQ:How_does_ISO/IEC_17025_impact_laboratories%3F |title=LIMS FAQ:What are the key elements of a LIMS to better comply with ISO/IEC 17025? |author=Douglas, S.E. |work=LIMSwiki |date=January 2023 |accessdate=24 January 2024}}</ref> —have a leg up on ensuring their lab is tapping into the prinicple of consistency.<ref name="DouglasHowDoesISO23" /><ref name="IngallsHowAdv20">{{cite web |url=https://foodsafetytech.com/feature_article/how-advanced-lims-brings-control-consistency-and-compliance-to-food-safety/ |title=How Advanced LIMS Brings Control, Consistency and Compliance to Food Safety |author=Ingalls, E. |work=Food Safety Tech |date=06 August 2020 |accessdate=24 January 2024}}</ref>
Close to the core of any deep discussion of the FAIR data principles are the concepts of data models, data types, [[metadata]], and persistent unique identifiers (PIDs). Making research objects more findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable is no easy task when data types and approaches to metadata assignment (if there even is such an approach) are widely differing and inconsistent. Metadata is a means for better storing and characterizing research objects for the purposes of ensuring provenance and reproducibility of those research objects.<ref name="GhiringhelliShared23">{{Cite journal |last=Ghiringhelli |first=Luca M. |last2=Baldauf |first2=Carsten |last3=Bereau |first3=Tristan |last4=Brockhauser |first4=Sandor |last5=Carbogno |first5=Christian |last6=Chamanara |first6=Javad |last7=Cozzini |first7=Stefano |last8=Curtarolo |first8=Stefano |last9=Draxl |first9=Claudia |last10=Dwaraknath |first10=Shyam |last11=Fekete |first11=Ádám |date=2023-09-14 |title=Shared metadata for data-centric materials science |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02501-8 |journal=Scientific Data |language=en |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=626 |doi=10.1038/s41597-023-02501-8 |issn=2052-4463 |pmc=PMC10502089 |pmid=37709811}}</ref><ref name="FirschenAgile22">{{Cite journal |last=Fitschen |first=Timm |last2=tom Wörden |first2=Henrik |last3=Schlemmer |first3=Alexander |last4=Spreckelsen |first4=Florian |last5=Hornung |first5=Daniel |date=2022-10-12 |title=Agile Research Data Management with FDOs using LinkAhead |url=https://riojournal.com/article/96075/ |journal=Research Ideas and Outcomes |volume=8 |pages=e96075 |doi=10.3897/rio.8.e96075 |issn=2367-7163}}</ref> This means as early as possible implementing a software-based approach that is FAIR-driven, capturing FAIR metadata using flexible domain-driven [[Ontology (information science)|ontologies]] (i.e., controlled vocabularies) at the source and cleaning up old research objects that aren't FAIR-ready while also limiting hindrances to research processes as much as possible.<ref name="FirschenAgile22" /> And that approach must value the importance of metadata and PIDs. As Weigel ''et al.'' note in a discussion on making laboratory data and workflows more machine-findable: "Metadata capture must be highly automated and reliable, both in terms of technical reliability and ensured metadata quality. This requires an approach that may be very different from established procedures."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Weigel |first=Tobias |last2=Schwardmann |first2=Ulrich |last3=Klump |first3=Jens |last4=Bendoukha |first4=Sofiane |last5=Quick |first5=Robert |date=2020-01 |title=Making Data and Workflows Findable for Machines |url=https://direct.mit.edu/dint/article/2/1-2/40-46/9994 |journal=Data Intelligence |language=en |volume=2 |issue=1-2 |pages=40–46 |doi=10.1162/dint_a_00026 |issn=2641-435X}}</ref> Enter non-relational RDF [[knowledge graph]] [[database]]s.
*'''Traceability''': From the perspective of regulatory agencies such as the U.S. FDA, the concept of traceability for food safety addresses the entire food supply chain, from farm to table (or at least the "last mile" before the consumer acquires the final product).<ref name="FDAFSMAFinal23">{{cite web |url=https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma/fsma-final-rule-requirements-additional-traceability-records-certain-foods |title=FSMA Final Rule on Requirements for Additional Traceability Records for Certain Foods |publisher=U.S. Food and Drug Administration |date=21 November 2023 |accessdate=24 January 2024}}</ref> The manufacturing or R&D laboratory is not exempt from this accountability chain, and in fact most food and beverage labs will play an important role through their analyses and corresponding documentation. This extends beyond the traceability of a given ingredient or production batch in the production facility to traceability of samples in the lab, complete with all the appropriate metadata that helps paint a clearer picture of the ingredient or product batch being tested. A purpose-built LIMS for food and beverage will incorporate an audit trail that records the who, what, when, where, and why of a process step, as well as a chain of custody mechanism, sample tracking mechanisms, electronic signatures, robust query tools, and data archiving tools to support not only day-to-day operations but also auditing and other regulatory activities.
 
*'''Relevance''':
This brings us to our second point: given the importance of metadata and PIDs to FAIRifying research objects (and even research software), established, more traditional research software development methods using common relational databases may not be enough, even for commercial laboratory informatics software developers. Non-relational [[Resource Description Framework]] (RDF) knowledge graph databases used in FAIR-driven, well-designed laboratory informatics software help make research objects more FAIR for all research labs.
*'''Transparent and accountable integrity''':
 
Research objects can take many forms (i.e., data types), making the storage and management of those objects challenging, particularly in research settings with great diversity of data, as with materials research. Some have approached this challenge by combining different database and systems technologies that are best suited for each data type.<ref name="AggourSemantics24">{{Cite journal |last=Aggour |first=Kareem S. |last2=Kumar |first2=Vijay S. |last3=Gupta |first3=Vipul K. |last4=Gabaldon |first4=Alfredo |last5=Cuddihy |first5=Paul |last6=Mulwad |first6=Varish |date=2024-04-09 |title=Semantics-Enabled Data Federation: Bringing Materials Scientists Closer to FAIR Data |url=https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40192-024-00348-4 |journal=Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation |language=en |doi=10.1007/s40192-024-00348-4 |issn=2193-9764}}</ref> However, while query performance and storage footprint improves with this approach, data across the different storage mechanisms typically remains unlinked and non-compliant with FAIR principles. Here, either a full RDF knowledge graph database or similar integration layer is required to better make the research objects more interoperable and reusable, whether it's materials records or specimen data.<ref name="AggourSemantics24" /><ref name="GrobeFromData19">{{Cite journal |last=Grobe |first=Peter |last2=Baum |first2=Roman |last3=Bhatty |first3=Philipp |last4=Köhler |first4=Christian |last5=Meid |first5=Sandra |last6=Quast |first6=Björn |last7=Vogt |first7=Lars |date=2019-06-26 |title=From Data to Knowledge: A semantic knowledge graph application for curating specimen data |url=https://biss.pensoft.net/article/37412/ |journal=Biodiversity Information Science and Standards |language=en |volume=3 |pages=e37412 |doi=10.3897/biss.3.37412 |issn=2535-0897}}</ref>
 
It is beyond the scope of this Q&A article to discuss RDF knowledge graph databases at length. (For a deeper dive on this topic, see Rocca-Serra ''et al.'' and the FAIR Cookbook.<ref name="Rocca-SerraFAIRCook22">{{Cite book |last=Rocca-Serra, Philippe |last2=Sansone, Susanna-Assunta |last3=Gu, Wei |last4=Welter, Danielle |last5=Abbassi Daloii, Tooba |last6=Portell-Silva, Laura |date=2022-06-30 |title=D2.1 FAIR Cookbook |url=https://zenodo.org/record/6783564 |chapter=FAIR and Knowledge graphs |doi=10.5281/ZENODO.6783564}}</ref>) However, know that the primary strength of these databases to FAIRification of research objects is their ability to provide [[Semantics|semantic]] transparency (i.e., provide a framework for better understanding and reusing the greater research object through basic examination of the relationships of its associated metadata and their constituents), making these objects more easily accessible, interoperable, and machine-readable.<ref name="AggourSemantics24" /> The resulting knowledge graphs, with their "subject-property-object" syntax and PIDs or uniform resource identifiers (URIs) helping to link data, metadata, ontology classes, and more, can be interpreted, searched, and linked by machines, and made human-readable, resulting in better research through derivation of new knowledge from the existing research objects. The end result is a representation of heterogeneous data and metadata that complies with the FAIR guiding principles.<ref name="AggourSemantics24" /><ref name="GrobeFromData19" /><ref name="Rocca-SerraFAIRCook22" /><ref name="TomlinsonRDF23">{{cite web |url=https://21624527.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/21624527/Resources/RDF%20Knowledge%20Graph%20Databases%20White%20Paper.pdf |format=PDF |title=RDF Knowledge Graph Databases: A Better Choice for Life Science Lab Software |author=Tomlinson, E. |publisher=Semaphore Solutions, Inc |date=28 July 2023 |accessdate=01 May 2024}}</ref><ref name="DeagenFAIRAnd22">{{Cite journal |last=Deagen |first=Michael E. |last2=McCusker |first2=Jamie P. |last3=Fateye |first3=Tolulomo |last4=Stouffer |first4=Samuel |last5=Brinson |first5=L. Cate |last6=McGuinness |first6=Deborah L. |last7=Schadler |first7=Linda S. |date=2022-05-27 |title=FAIR and Interactive Data Graphics from a Scientific Knowledge Graph |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01352-z |journal=Scientific Data |language=en |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=239 |doi=10.1038/s41597-022-01352-z |issn=2052-4463 |pmc=PMC9142568 |pmid=35624233}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Brandizi |first=Marco |last2=Singh |first2=Ajit |last3=Rawlings |first3=Christopher |last4=Hassani-Pak |first4=Keywan |date=2018-09-25 |title=Towards FAIRer Biological Knowledge Networks Using a Hybrid Linked Data and Graph Database Approach |url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jib-2018-0023/html |journal=Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics |language=en |volume=15 |issue=3 |pages=20180023 |doi=10.1515/jib-2018-0023 |issn=1613-4516 |pmc=PMC6340125 |pmid=30085931}}</ref> This concept can even be extended to ''post factum'' visualizations of the knowledge graph data<ref name="DeagenFAIRAnd22" />, as well as the FAIR management of computational laboratory [[workflow]]s.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=de Visser |first=Casper |last2=Johansson |first2=Lennart F. |last3=Kulkarni |first3=Purva |last4=Mei |first4=Hailiang |last5=Neerincx |first5=Pieter |last6=Joeri van der Velde |first6=K. |last7=Horvatovich |first7=Péter |last8=van Gool |first8=Alain J. |last9=Swertz |first9=Morris A. |last10=Hoen |first10=Peter A. C. ‘t |last11=Niehues |first11=Anna |date=2023-09-28 |editor-last=Palagi |editor-first=Patricia M. |title=Ten quick tips for building FAIR workflows |url=https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011369 |journal=PLOS Computational Biology |language=en |volume=19 |issue=9 |pages=e1011369 |doi=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011369 |issn=1553-7358 |pmc=PMC10538699 |pmid=37768885}}</ref>
 
While rare, some commercial laboratory informatics vendors like Semaphore Solutions have already recognized the potential of RDF knowledge graph databases to FAIR-driven laboratory research, having implemented such structures into their offerings.<ref name="TomlinsonRDF23" /> (The use of knowledge graphs has already been demonstrated in academic research software, such as with the ELN tools developed by RSEs at the University of Rostock and University of Amsterdam.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Schröder |first=Max |last2=Staehlke |first2=Susanne |last3=Groth |first3=Paul |last4=Nebe |first4=J. Barbara |last5=Spors |first5=Sascha |last6=Krüger |first6=Frank |date=2022-12 |title=Structure-based knowledge acquisition from electronic lab notebooks for research data provenance documentation |url=https://jbiomedsem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13326-021-00257-x |journal=Journal of Biomedical Semantics |language=en |volume=13 |issue=1 |pages=4 |doi=10.1186/s13326-021-00257-x |issn=2041-1480 |pmc=PMC8802522 |pmid=35101121}}</ref>) As noted in the prior point, it is potentially advantageous to not only laboratory informatics vendors to provide but also research labs to use relevant and sustainable research software that has the FAIR principles embedded in the software's design. Turning to knowledge graph databases is another example of keeping such software relevant and FAIR to research labs.
 
===Applying FAIR-driven metadata schemes to laboratory informatics software development gives data a FAIRer chance at being ready for machine learning and artificial intelligence applications===
The third and final point for this Q&A article highlights another positive consequence of engineering laboratory informatics software with FAIR in mind: FAIRified research objects are much closer to being usable for the trending inclusion of [[machine learning]] (ML) and [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) tools in laboratory informatics platforms and other companion research software. By developing laboratory informatics software with a focus on FAIR-driven metadata and database schemes, not only are research objects more FAIR but also "cleaner" and more machine-ready for advanced analytical uses as with ML and AI.
 
To be sure, the FAIRness of any structured dataset alone is not enough to make it ready for ML and AI applications. Factors such as classification, completeness, context, correctness, duplicity, integrity, mislabeling, outliers, relevancy, sample size, and timeliness of the research object and its contents are also important to consider.<ref name="HinidumaDataRead24">{{Cite journal |last=Hiniduma |first=Kaveen |last2=Byna |first2=Suren |last3=Bez |first3=Jean Luca |date=2024 |title=Data Readiness for AI: A 360-Degree Survey |url=https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05779 |journal=arXiv |doi=10.48550/ARXIV.2404.05779}}</ref><ref name="FletcherFAIRRe24">{{Cite journal |last=Fletcher |first=Lydia |date=2024-04-16 |others=The University Of Texas At Austin, The University Of Texas At Austin |title=FAIR Re-use: Implications for AI-Readiness |url=https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/124873 |doi=10.26153/TSW/51475}}</ref> When those factors aren't appropriately addressed as part of a FAIRification effort towards AI readiness (as well as part of the development of research software of all types), research data and metadata have a higher likelihood of revealing themselves to be inconsistent. As such, searches and analytics using that data and metadata become muddled, and the ultimate ML or AI output will also be muddled (i.e., "garbage in, garbage out"). Whether retroactively updating existing research objects to a more FAIRified state or ensuring research objects (e.g., those originating in an ELN or LIMS) are more FAIR and AI-ready from the start, research software updating or generating those research objects has to address ontologies, data models, data types, identifiers, and more in a thorough yet flexible way.<ref name="OlsenEmbracing23">{{cite web |url=https://www.pharmasalmanac.com/articles/embracing-fair-data-on-the-path-to-ai-readiness |title=Embracing FAIR Data on the Path to AI-Readiness |author=Olsen, C. |work=Pharma's Almanac |date=01 September 2023 |accessdate=03 May 2024}}</ref>
 
Noting that Wilkinson ''et al.'' originally highlighted the importance of machine-readability of FAIR data, Huerta ''et al.'' add that that core principle of FAIRness "is synergistic with the rapid adoption and increased use of AI in research."<ref name="HuertaFAIRForAI23">{{Cite journal |last=Huerta |first=E. A. |last2=Blaiszik |first2=Ben |last3=Brinson |first3=L. Catherine |last4=Bouchard |first4=Kristofer E. |last5=Diaz |first5=Daniel |last6=Doglioni |first6=Caterina |last7=Duarte |first7=Javier M. |last8=Emani |first8=Murali |last9=Foster |first9=Ian |last10=Fox |first10=Geoffrey |last11=Harris |first11=Philip |date=2023-07-26 |title=FAIR for AI: An interdisciplinary and international community building perspective |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02298-6 |journal=Scientific Data |language=en |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=487 |doi=10.1038/s41597-023-02298-6 |issn=2052-4463 |pmc=PMC10372139 |pmid=37495591}}</ref> They go on to discuss the positive interactions of FAIR research objects with FAIR-driven, AI-based research. Among the benefits include<ref name="HuertaFAIRForAI23" />:
 
*greater findability of FAIR research objects for further AI-driven scientific discovery;
*greater reproducibility of FAIR research objects and any AI models published with them;
*improved generalization of AI-driven medical research models when exposed to diverse and FAIR research objects;
*improved reporting of AI-driven research results using FAIRified research objects, lending further credibility to those results;
*more uniform comparison of AI models using well-defined hyperstructure and information training conditions from FAIRified research objects;
*more developed and interoperable "data e-infrastructure," which can further drive a more effective "AI services layer";
*reduced bias in AI-driven processes through the use of FAIR research objects and AI models; and
*improved surety of scientific correctness where reproducibility in AI-driven research can't be guaranteed.
 
In the end, developers of research software (whether discipline-specific research software or broader laboratory informatics solutions) would be advised to keep in mind the growing trends of FAIR research, FAIR software, and ML- and AI-driven research, especially in the [[life sciences]], but also a variety of other fields.<ref name="HuertaFAIRForAI23" />
 
===Restricted clinical data and its FAIRification for greater research innovation===
Broader discussion in the research community continues to occur in regards to how best to ethically make restricted or privacy-protected clinical data and information FAIR for greater innovation and, by extension, improved patient outcomes, particularly in the wake of the [[COVID-19]] [[pandemic]].<ref name="MaxwellFAIREthic23">{{Cite journal |last=Maxwell |first=Lauren |last2=Shreedhar |first2=Priya |last3=Dauga |first3=Delphine |last4=McQuilton |first4=Peter |last5=Terry |first5=Robert F |last6=Denisiuk |first6=Alisa |last7=Molnar-Gabor |first7=Fruzsina |last8=Saxena |first8=Abha |last9=Sansone |first9=Susanna-Assunta |date=2023-10 |title=FAIR, ethical, and coordinated data sharing for COVID-19 response: a scoping review and cross-sectional survey of COVID-19 data sharing platforms and registries |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2589750023001292 |journal=The Lancet Digital Health |language=en |volume=5 |issue=10 |pages=e712–e736 |doi=10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00129-2 |pmc=PMC10552001 |pmid=37775189}}</ref><ref name="Queralt-RosinachApplying22">{{Cite journal |last=Queralt-Rosinach |first=Núria |last2=Kaliyaperumal |first2=Rajaram |last3=Bernabé |first3=César H. |last4=Long |first4=Qinqin |last5=Joosten |first5=Simone A. |last6=van der Wijk |first6=Henk Jan |last7=Flikkenschild |first7=Erik L.A. |last8=Burger |first8=Kees |last9=Jacobsen |first9=Annika |last10=Mons |first10=Barend |last11=Roos |first11=Marco |date=2022-12 |title=Applying the FAIR principles to data in a hospital: challenges and opportunities in a pandemic |url=https://jbiomedsem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13326-022-00263-7 |journal=Journal of Biomedical Semantics |language=en |volume=13 |issue=1 |pages=12 |doi=10.1186/s13326-022-00263-7 |issn=2041-1480 |pmc=PMC9036506 |pmid=35468846}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Martínez-García |first=Alicia |last2=Alvarez-Romero |first2=Celia |last3=Román-Villarán |first3=Esther |last4=Bernabeu-Wittel |first4=Máximo |last5=Luis Parra-Calderón |first5=Carlos |date=2023-05 |title=FAIR principles to improve the impact on health research management outcomes |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2405844023029407 |journal=Heliyon |language=en |volume=9 |issue=5 |pages=e15733 |doi=10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15733 |pmc=PMC10189186 |pmid=37205991}}</ref> (Note that while there are other types of restricted and privacy-protected data, this section will focus largely on clinical data and research objects as the most obvious type.)
 
These efforts have usually revolved around pulling reusable clinical patient or research data from [[hospital information system]]s (HIS), [[electronic medical record]]s (EMRs), [[clinical trial management system]]s (CTMSs), and research databases (often relational in nature) that either contain de-identified data or can de-identify aspects of data and information before access and extraction. Sometimes that clinical data or research object may have already in part been FAIRified, but often it may not be. In all cases, the concepts of privacy, security, and anonymization come up as part of any desire to gain access to that clinical material. However, any FAIRified clinical data isn't necessarily readily open for access. As Snoeijer ''et al.'' note: "The authors of the FAIR principles, however, clearly indicate that 'accessible' does not mean open. It means that clarity and transparency is required around the conditions governing access and reuse."<ref name="SnoeijerProcess19">{{cite book |url=https://phuse.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/Archive/2019/Connect/EU/Amsterdam/PAP_SA04.pdf |format=PDF |chapter=Paper SA04 - Processing big data from multiple sources |title=Proceedings of PHUSE Connect EU 2019 |author=Snoeijer, B.; Pasapula, V.; Covucci, A. et al. |publisher=PHUSE Limited |year=2019 |accessdate=03 May 2024}}</ref>
 
This is being mentioned in the context of laboratory informatics applications for a couple of reasons. First, a well-designed commercial LIMS that supports clinical research laboratory workflows is already going to address privacy and security aspects, as part of the developer recognizing the need for those labs to adhere to regulations such as the [[Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act]] (HIPAA) and comply with standards such as [[ISO 15189]]. However, such a system may not have been developed with FAIR data principles in mind, and any built-in metadata and ontology schemes may be insufficient for full FAIRification of laboratory-based clinical trial research objects. As Queralt-Rosinach ''et al.'' note, however, "interestingly, ontologies may also be used to describe data access restrictions to complement FAIR metadata with information that supports data safety and patient privacy."<ref name="Queralt-RosinachApplying22" /> Essentially, the authors are suggesting that while a HIS or LIS may have built-in access management tools, setting up ontologies and metadata mechanisms that link privacy aspects of a research object (e.g., "has consent form for," "is de-identified," etc.) to the object's metadata allows for even more flexible, FAIR-driven approaches to privacy and security. Research software developers creating such information management tools for the regulated clinical research space may want to apply FAIR concepts such as this to how access control and privacy restrictions are managed. This will inevitably mean any research objects exported with machine-readable privacy-concerning metadata will be more reusable in a way that still "supports data safety and patient privacy."<ref name="Queralt-RosinachApplying22" />
 
Second, a well-designed research software solution working with clinical data will provide not only support for open, community-supported data models and vocabularies for clinical data, but also standardized community-driven ontologies that are specifically developed for access control and privacy. Queralt-Rosinach ''et al.'' continue<ref name="Queralt-RosinachApplying22" />:
 
<blockquote>Also, very important for accessibility and data privacy is that the digital objects ''per se'' can accommodate the criteria and protocols necessary to comply with regulatory and governance frameworks. Ontologies can aid in opening and protecting patient data by exposing logical definitions of data use conditions. Indeed, there are ontologies to define access and reuse conditions for patient data such as the Informed Consent Ontology (ICO), the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health Data Use Ontology (DUO) standard, and the Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) vocabulary recommended by W3C.</blockquote>
 
Also of note here is the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM) and its OHDSI standardized vocabularies. In all these cases, a developer-driven approach to research software that incorporates community-driven standards that support FAIR principles is welcome. However, as Maxwell ''et al.'' noted in their ''Lancet'' review article in late 2023, "few platforms or registries applied community-developed standards for participant-level data, further restricting the interoperability of ... data-sharing initiatives [like FAIR]."<ref name="MaxwellFAIREthic23" /> As the FAIR principles continue to gain ground in clinical research and diagnostics settings, software developers will need to be more attuned to translating old ways of development to ones that incorporate FAIR data and software principles. Demand for FAIR data will only continue to grow, and any efforts to improve interoperability and reusability while honoring (and enhancing) privacy and security aspects of restricted data will be appreciated by clinical researchers. However, just as FAIR is not an overall goal for researchers, software built with FAIR principles in mind is not the end point of research organizations managing restricted and privacy-protected research objects. Ultimately, those organizations will have make other considerations about restricted data in the scope of FAIR, including addressing data management plans, data use agreements, disclosure review practices, and training as it applies to their research software and generated research objects.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Jang |first=Joy Bohyun |last2=Pienta |first2=Amy |last3=Levenstein |first3=Margaret |last4=Saul |first4=Joe |date=2023-12-06 |title=Restricted data management: the current practice and the future |url=https://journalprivacyconfidentiality.org/index.php/jpc/article/view/844 |journal=Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality |volume=13 |issue=2 |doi=10.29012/jpc.844 |issn=2575-8527 |pmc=PMC10956935 |pmid=38515607}}</ref>


==Conclusion==
==Conclusion==
 
Laboratory informatics developers will also need to remember that FAIRification of research in itself is not a goal for research laboratories; it is a continual process that recognizes improved scientific research and greater innovation as a more likely outcome.<ref name="WilkinsonTheFAIR16" /><ref name="OlsenEmbracing23" /><ref name="HuertaFAIRForAI23" />


==References==
==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}
<!---Place all category tags here-->
<!---Place all category tags here-->

Latest revision as of 13:29, 13 May 2024

This is sublevel12 of my sandbox, where I play with features and test MediaWiki code. If you wish to leave a comment for me, please see my discussion page instead.

Sandbox begins below

FAIRResourcesGraphic AustralianResearchDataCommons 2018.png

Title: What are the potential implications of the FAIR data principles to laboratory informatics applications?

Author for citation: Shawn E. Douglas

License for content: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Publication date: May 2024

Introduction

https://www.limswiki.org/index.php/Journal:Infrastructure_tools_to_support_an_effective_radiation_oncology_learning_health_system

This brief topical article will examine

The "FAIR-ification" of research objects and software

First discussed during a 2014 FORCE-11 workshop dedicated to "overcoming data discovery and reuse obstacles," the FAIR data principles were published by Wilkinson et al. in 2016 as a stakeholder collaboration driven to see research "objects" (i.e., research data and information of all shapes and formats) become more universally findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) by both machines and people.[1] The authors released the FAIR principles while recognizing that "one of the grand challenges of data-intensive science ... is to improve knowledge discovery through assisting both humans and their computational agents in the discovery of, access to, and integration and analysis of task-appropriate scientific data and other scholarly digital objects."[1]

Since 2016, other research stakeholders have taken to publishing their thoughts about how the FAIR principles apply to their fields of study and practice[2], including in ways beyond what perhaps was originally imagined by Wilkinson et al.. For example, multiple authors have examined whether or not the software used in scientific endeavors itself can be considered a research object worth being developed and managed in tandem with the FAIR data principles.[3][4][5][6][7] Researchers quickly recognized that any planning around updating processes and systems to make research objects more FAIR would have to be tailored to specific research contexts, recognize that digital research objects go beyond data and information, and recognize "the specific nature of software" and not consider it "just data."[4] The end result has been applying the core concepts of FAIR but differently from data, with the added context of research software being more than just data, requiring more nuance and a different type of planning from applying FAIR to digital data and information.

A 2019 survey by Europe's FAIRsFAIR found that researchers seeking and re-using relevant research software on the internet faced multiple challenges, including understanding and/or maintaining the necessary software environment and its dependencies, finding sufficient documentation, struggling with accessibility and licensing issues, having the time and skills to install and/or use the software, finding quality control of the source code lacking, and having an insufficient (or non-existent) software sustainability and management plan.[4] These challenges highlight the importance of software to researchers and other stakeholders, and the roll FAIR has in better ensuring such software is findable, interoperable, and reusable, which in turn better ensures researchers' software-driven research is repeatable (by the same research team, with the same experimental setup), reproducible (by a different research team, with the same experimental setup), and replicable (by a different research team, with a different experimental setup).[4]

At this point, the topic of what "research software" represents must be addressed further, and, unsurprisingly, it's not straightforward. Ask 20 researchers what "research software" is, and you may get 20 different opinions. Some definitions can be more objectively viewed as too narrow, while others may be viewed as too broad, with some level of controversy inherent in any mutual discussion.[8][9][10] In 2021, as part of the FAIRsFAIR initiative, Gruenpeter et al. made a good-faith effort to define "research software" with the feedback of multiple stakeholders. Their efforts resulted in this definition[8]:

Research software includes source code files, algorithms, scripts, computational workflows, and executables that were created during the research process, or for a research purpose. Software components (e.g., operating systems, libraries, dependencies, packages, scripts, etc.) that are used for research but were not created during, or with a clear research intent, should be considered "software [used] in research" and not research software. This differentiation may vary between disciplines. The minimal requirement for achieving computational reproducibility is that all the computational components (i.e., research software, software used in research, documentation, and hardware) used during the research are identified, described, and made accessible to the extent that is possible.

Note that while the definition primarily recognizes software created during the research process, software created (whether by the research group, other open-source software developers outside the organization, or even commercial software developers) "for a research purpose" outside the actual research process is also recognized as research software. This notably can lead to disagreement about whether a proprietary, commercial spreadsheet or laboratory information management system (LIMS) offering that conducts analyses and visualizations of research data can genuinely be called research software, or simply classified as software used in research. van Nieuwpoort and Katz further elaborated on this concept, at least indirectly, by formally defining the roles of research software in 2023. Their definition of the various roles of research software—without using terms such as "open-source," "commercial," or "proprietary"—essentially further defined what research software is[10]:

  • Research software is a component of our instruments.
  • Research software is the instrument.
  • Research software analyzes research data.
  • Research software presents research results.
  • Research software assembles or integrates existing components into a working whole.
  • Research software is infrastructure or an underlying tool.
  • Research software facilitates distinctively research-oriented collaboration.

When considering these definitions[8][10] of research software and their adoption by other entities[11], it would appear that at least in part some laboratory informatics software—whether open-source or commercially proprietary—fills these roles in academic, military, and industry research laboratories of many types. In particular, electronic laboratory notebooks (ELNs) like open-source Jupyter Notebook or proprietary ELNs from commercial software developers fill the role of analyzing and visualizing research data, including developing molecular models for new promising research routes.[10] Even more advanced LIMS solutions that go beyond simply collating, auditing, securing, and reporting analytical results could conceivably fall under the umbrella of research software, particularly if many of the analytical, integration, and collaboration tools required in modern research facilities are included in the LIMS.

Ultimately, assuming that some laboratory informatics software can be considered research software and not just "software used in research," it's tough not to arrive at some deeper implications of research organizations' increasing need for FAIR data objects and software, particularly for laboratory informatics software and the developers of it.

Implications of the FAIR concept to laboratory informatics software

The global FAIR initiative affects, and even benefits, commercial laboratory informatics research software developers as much as it does academic and institutional ones

To be clear, there is undoubtedly a difference in the software development approach of "homegrown" research software by academics and institutions, and the more streamlined and experienced approach of commercial software development houses as applied to research software. Moynihan of Invenia Technical Computing described the difference in software development approaches thusly in 2020, while discussing the concept of "research software engineering"[12]:

Since the environment and incentives around building academic research software are very different to those of industry, the workflows around the former are, in general, not guided by the same engineering practices that are valued in the latter. That is to say: there is a difference between what is important in writing software for research, and for a user-focused software product. Academic research software prioritizes scientific correctness and flexibility to experiment above all else in pursuit of the researchers’ end product: published papers. Industry software, on the other hand, prioritizes maintainability, robustness, and testing, as the software (generally speaking) is the product. However, the two tracks share many common goals as well, such as catering to “users” [and] emphasizing performance and reproducibility, but most importantly both ventures are collaborative. Arguably then, both sets of principles are needed to write and maintain high-quality research software.

This brings us to our first point: the application of small-scale, FAIR-driven academic research software engineering practices and elements to the larger development of more commercial laboratory informatics software, and vice versa with the application of commercial-scale development practices to small FAIR-focused academic and institutional research software engineering efforts, has the potential to help better support all research laboratories using both independently-developed and commercial research software.

The concept of the research software engineer (RSE) began to take full form in 2012, and since then universities and institutions of many types have formally developed their own RSE groups and academic programs.[13][14][15] RSEs range from pure software developers with little knowledge of a given research discipline, to scientific researchers just beginning to learn how to develop software for their research project(s). While in the past, broadly speaking, researchers often cobbled together research software with less a focus on quality and reproducibility and more on getting their research published, today's push for FAIR data and software by academic journals, institutions, and other researchers seeking to collaborate has placed a much greater focus on the concept of "better software, better research."[13][16] Elaborating on that concept, Cohen et al. add that "ultimately, good research software can make the difference between valid, sustainable, reproducible research outputs and short-lived, potentially unreliable or erroneous outputs."[16]

The concept of software quality management (SQM) has traditionally not been lost on professional, commercial software development businesses. Good SQM practices have been less prevalent in homegrown research software development; however, the expanded adoption of FAIR data and FAIR software approaches has shifted the focus on to the repeatability, reproducibility, and interoperability of research results and data produced by a more sustainable research software. The adoption of FAIR by academic and institutional research labs not only brings commercial SQM and other software development approaches into their workflow, but also gives commercial laboratory informatics software developers an opportunity to embrace many aspects of the FAIR approach to laboratory research practices, including lessons learned and development practices from the growing number of RSEs. This doesn't mean commercial developers are going to suddenly take an open-source approach to their code, and it doesn't mean academic and institutional research labs are going to give up the benefits of the open-source paradigm as applied to research software.[17] However, as Moynihan noted, both research software development paradigms stand to gain from the shift to more FAIR data and software.[12] Additionally, if commercial laboratory informatics vendors want to continue to competitively market relevant and sustainable research software to research labs, they frankly have little choice but to commit extra resources to learning about the application of FAIR principles to their offerings tailored to those labs.

The focus on data types and metadata within the scope of FAIR is shifting how laboratory informatics software developers and RSEs make their research software and choose their database approaches

Close to the core of any deep discussion of the FAIR data principles are the concepts of data models, data types, metadata, and persistent unique identifiers (PIDs). Making research objects more findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable is no easy task when data types and approaches to metadata assignment (if there even is such an approach) are widely differing and inconsistent. Metadata is a means for better storing and characterizing research objects for the purposes of ensuring provenance and reproducibility of those research objects.[18][19] This means as early as possible implementing a software-based approach that is FAIR-driven, capturing FAIR metadata using flexible domain-driven ontologies (i.e., controlled vocabularies) at the source and cleaning up old research objects that aren't FAIR-ready while also limiting hindrances to research processes as much as possible.[19] And that approach must value the importance of metadata and PIDs. As Weigel et al. note in a discussion on making laboratory data and workflows more machine-findable: "Metadata capture must be highly automated and reliable, both in terms of technical reliability and ensured metadata quality. This requires an approach that may be very different from established procedures."[20] Enter non-relational RDF knowledge graph databases.

This brings us to our second point: given the importance of metadata and PIDs to FAIRifying research objects (and even research software), established, more traditional research software development methods using common relational databases may not be enough, even for commercial laboratory informatics software developers. Non-relational Resource Description Framework (RDF) knowledge graph databases used in FAIR-driven, well-designed laboratory informatics software help make research objects more FAIR for all research labs.

Research objects can take many forms (i.e., data types), making the storage and management of those objects challenging, particularly in research settings with great diversity of data, as with materials research. Some have approached this challenge by combining different database and systems technologies that are best suited for each data type.[21] However, while query performance and storage footprint improves with this approach, data across the different storage mechanisms typically remains unlinked and non-compliant with FAIR principles. Here, either a full RDF knowledge graph database or similar integration layer is required to better make the research objects more interoperable and reusable, whether it's materials records or specimen data.[21][22]

It is beyond the scope of this Q&A article to discuss RDF knowledge graph databases at length. (For a deeper dive on this topic, see Rocca-Serra et al. and the FAIR Cookbook.[23]) However, know that the primary strength of these databases to FAIRification of research objects is their ability to provide semantic transparency (i.e., provide a framework for better understanding and reusing the greater research object through basic examination of the relationships of its associated metadata and their constituents), making these objects more easily accessible, interoperable, and machine-readable.[21] The resulting knowledge graphs, with their "subject-property-object" syntax and PIDs or uniform resource identifiers (URIs) helping to link data, metadata, ontology classes, and more, can be interpreted, searched, and linked by machines, and made human-readable, resulting in better research through derivation of new knowledge from the existing research objects. The end result is a representation of heterogeneous data and metadata that complies with the FAIR guiding principles.[21][22][23][24][25][26] This concept can even be extended to post factum visualizations of the knowledge graph data[25], as well as the FAIR management of computational laboratory workflows.[27]

While rare, some commercial laboratory informatics vendors like Semaphore Solutions have already recognized the potential of RDF knowledge graph databases to FAIR-driven laboratory research, having implemented such structures into their offerings.[24] (The use of knowledge graphs has already been demonstrated in academic research software, such as with the ELN tools developed by RSEs at the University of Rostock and University of Amsterdam.[28]) As noted in the prior point, it is potentially advantageous to not only laboratory informatics vendors to provide but also research labs to use relevant and sustainable research software that has the FAIR principles embedded in the software's design. Turning to knowledge graph databases is another example of keeping such software relevant and FAIR to research labs.

Applying FAIR-driven metadata schemes to laboratory informatics software development gives data a FAIRer chance at being ready for machine learning and artificial intelligence applications

The third and final point for this Q&A article highlights another positive consequence of engineering laboratory informatics software with FAIR in mind: FAIRified research objects are much closer to being usable for the trending inclusion of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) tools in laboratory informatics platforms and other companion research software. By developing laboratory informatics software with a focus on FAIR-driven metadata and database schemes, not only are research objects more FAIR but also "cleaner" and more machine-ready for advanced analytical uses as with ML and AI.

To be sure, the FAIRness of any structured dataset alone is not enough to make it ready for ML and AI applications. Factors such as classification, completeness, context, correctness, duplicity, integrity, mislabeling, outliers, relevancy, sample size, and timeliness of the research object and its contents are also important to consider.[29][30] When those factors aren't appropriately addressed as part of a FAIRification effort towards AI readiness (as well as part of the development of research software of all types), research data and metadata have a higher likelihood of revealing themselves to be inconsistent. As such, searches and analytics using that data and metadata become muddled, and the ultimate ML or AI output will also be muddled (i.e., "garbage in, garbage out"). Whether retroactively updating existing research objects to a more FAIRified state or ensuring research objects (e.g., those originating in an ELN or LIMS) are more FAIR and AI-ready from the start, research software updating or generating those research objects has to address ontologies, data models, data types, identifiers, and more in a thorough yet flexible way.[31]

Noting that Wilkinson et al. originally highlighted the importance of machine-readability of FAIR data, Huerta et al. add that that core principle of FAIRness "is synergistic with the rapid adoption and increased use of AI in research."[32] They go on to discuss the positive interactions of FAIR research objects with FAIR-driven, AI-based research. Among the benefits include[32]:

  • greater findability of FAIR research objects for further AI-driven scientific discovery;
  • greater reproducibility of FAIR research objects and any AI models published with them;
  • improved generalization of AI-driven medical research models when exposed to diverse and FAIR research objects;
  • improved reporting of AI-driven research results using FAIRified research objects, lending further credibility to those results;
  • more uniform comparison of AI models using well-defined hyperstructure and information training conditions from FAIRified research objects;
  • more developed and interoperable "data e-infrastructure," which can further drive a more effective "AI services layer";
  • reduced bias in AI-driven processes through the use of FAIR research objects and AI models; and
  • improved surety of scientific correctness where reproducibility in AI-driven research can't be guaranteed.

In the end, developers of research software (whether discipline-specific research software or broader laboratory informatics solutions) would be advised to keep in mind the growing trends of FAIR research, FAIR software, and ML- and AI-driven research, especially in the life sciences, but also a variety of other fields.[32]

Restricted clinical data and its FAIRification for greater research innovation

Broader discussion in the research community continues to occur in regards to how best to ethically make restricted or privacy-protected clinical data and information FAIR for greater innovation and, by extension, improved patient outcomes, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.[33][34][35] (Note that while there are other types of restricted and privacy-protected data, this section will focus largely on clinical data and research objects as the most obvious type.)

These efforts have usually revolved around pulling reusable clinical patient or research data from hospital information systems (HIS), electronic medical records (EMRs), clinical trial management systems (CTMSs), and research databases (often relational in nature) that either contain de-identified data or can de-identify aspects of data and information before access and extraction. Sometimes that clinical data or research object may have already in part been FAIRified, but often it may not be. In all cases, the concepts of privacy, security, and anonymization come up as part of any desire to gain access to that clinical material. However, any FAIRified clinical data isn't necessarily readily open for access. As Snoeijer et al. note: "The authors of the FAIR principles, however, clearly indicate that 'accessible' does not mean open. It means that clarity and transparency is required around the conditions governing access and reuse."[36]

This is being mentioned in the context of laboratory informatics applications for a couple of reasons. First, a well-designed commercial LIMS that supports clinical research laboratory workflows is already going to address privacy and security aspects, as part of the developer recognizing the need for those labs to adhere to regulations such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and comply with standards such as ISO 15189. However, such a system may not have been developed with FAIR data principles in mind, and any built-in metadata and ontology schemes may be insufficient for full FAIRification of laboratory-based clinical trial research objects. As Queralt-Rosinach et al. note, however, "interestingly, ontologies may also be used to describe data access restrictions to complement FAIR metadata with information that supports data safety and patient privacy."[34] Essentially, the authors are suggesting that while a HIS or LIS may have built-in access management tools, setting up ontologies and metadata mechanisms that link privacy aspects of a research object (e.g., "has consent form for," "is de-identified," etc.) to the object's metadata allows for even more flexible, FAIR-driven approaches to privacy and security. Research software developers creating such information management tools for the regulated clinical research space may want to apply FAIR concepts such as this to how access control and privacy restrictions are managed. This will inevitably mean any research objects exported with machine-readable privacy-concerning metadata will be more reusable in a way that still "supports data safety and patient privacy."[34]

Second, a well-designed research software solution working with clinical data will provide not only support for open, community-supported data models and vocabularies for clinical data, but also standardized community-driven ontologies that are specifically developed for access control and privacy. Queralt-Rosinach et al. continue[34]:

Also, very important for accessibility and data privacy is that the digital objects per se can accommodate the criteria and protocols necessary to comply with regulatory and governance frameworks. Ontologies can aid in opening and protecting patient data by exposing logical definitions of data use conditions. Indeed, there are ontologies to define access and reuse conditions for patient data such as the Informed Consent Ontology (ICO), the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health Data Use Ontology (DUO) standard, and the Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) vocabulary recommended by W3C.

Also of note here is the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM) and its OHDSI standardized vocabularies. In all these cases, a developer-driven approach to research software that incorporates community-driven standards that support FAIR principles is welcome. However, as Maxwell et al. noted in their Lancet review article in late 2023, "few platforms or registries applied community-developed standards for participant-level data, further restricting the interoperability of ... data-sharing initiatives [like FAIR]."[33] As the FAIR principles continue to gain ground in clinical research and diagnostics settings, software developers will need to be more attuned to translating old ways of development to ones that incorporate FAIR data and software principles. Demand for FAIR data will only continue to grow, and any efforts to improve interoperability and reusability while honoring (and enhancing) privacy and security aspects of restricted data will be appreciated by clinical researchers. However, just as FAIR is not an overall goal for researchers, software built with FAIR principles in mind is not the end point of research organizations managing restricted and privacy-protected research objects. Ultimately, those organizations will have make other considerations about restricted data in the scope of FAIR, including addressing data management plans, data use agreements, disclosure review practices, and training as it applies to their research software and generated research objects.[37]

Conclusion

Laboratory informatics developers will also need to remember that FAIRification of research in itself is not a goal for research laboratories; it is a continual process that recognizes improved scientific research and greater innovation as a more likely outcome.[1][31][32]

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Wilkinson, Mark D.; Dumontier, Michel; Aalbersberg, IJsbrand Jan; Appleton, Gabrielle; Axton, Myles; Baak, Arie; Blomberg, Niklas; Boiten, Jan-Willem et al. (15 March 2016). "The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship" (in en). Scientific Data 3 (1): 160018. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18. ISSN 2052-4463. PMC PMC4792175. PMID 26978244. https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201618. 
  2. ↑ "fair data principles". PubMed Search. National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=fair+data+principles. Retrieved 30 April 2024. 
  3. ↑ Hasselbring, Wilhelm; Carr, Leslie; Hettrick, Simon; Packer, Heather; Tiropanis, Thanassis (25 February 2020). "From FAIR research data toward FAIR and open research software" (in en). it - Information Technology 62 (1): 39–47. doi:10.1515/itit-2019-0040. ISSN 2196-7032. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/itit-2019-0040/html. 
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Gruenpeter, M. (23 November 2020). "FAIR + Software: Decoding the principles" (PDF). FAIRsFAIR “Fostering FAIR Data Practices In Europe”. https://www.fairsfair.eu/sites/default/files/FAIR%20%2B%20software.pdf. Retrieved 30 April 2024. 
  5. ↑ Barker, Michelle; Chue Hong, Neil P.; Katz, Daniel S.; Lamprecht, Anna-Lena; Martinez-Ortiz, Carlos; Psomopoulos, Fotis; Harrow, Jennifer; Castro, Leyla Jael et al. (14 October 2022). "Introducing the FAIR Principles for research software" (in en). Scientific Data 9 (1): 622. doi:10.1038/s41597-022-01710-x. ISSN 2052-4463. PMC PMC9562067. PMID 36241754. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01710-x. 
  6. ↑ Patel, Bhavesh; Soundarajan, Sanjay; Ménager, Hervé; Hu, Zicheng (23 August 2023). "Making Biomedical Research Software FAIR: Actionable Step-by-step Guidelines with a User-support Tool" (in en). Scientific Data 10 (1): 557. doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02463-x. ISSN 2052-4463. PMC PMC10447492. PMID 37612312. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02463-x. 
  7. ↑ Du, Xinsong; Dastmalchi, Farhad; Ye, Hao; Garrett, Timothy J.; Diller, Matthew A.; Liu, Mei; Hogan, William R.; Brochhausen, Mathias et al. (6 February 2023). "Evaluating LC-HRMS metabolomics data processing software using FAIR principles for research software" (in en). Metabolomics 19 (2): 11. doi:10.1007/s11306-023-01974-3. ISSN 1573-3890. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11306-023-01974-3. 
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Gruenpeter, Morane; Katz, Daniel S.; Lamprecht, Anna-Lena; Honeyman, Tom; Garijo, Daniel; Struck, Alexander; Niehues, Anna; Martinez, Paula Andrea et al. (13 September 2021). "Defining Research Software: a controversial discussion". Zenodo. doi:10.5281/zenodo.5504016. https://zenodo.org/record/5504016. 
  9. ↑ "What is Research Software?". JuRSE, the Community of Practice for Research Software Engineering. Forschungszentrum Jülich. 13 February 2024. https://www.fz-juelich.de/en/rse/about-rse/what-is-research-software. Retrieved 30 April 2024. 
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 van Nieuwpoort, Rob; Katz, Daniel S. (14 March 2023) (in en). Defining the roles of research software. doi:10.54900/9akm9y5-5ject5y. https://upstream.force11.org/defining-the-roles-of-research-software. 
  11. ↑ "Open source software and code". F1000 Research Ltd. 2024. https://www.f1000.com/resources-for-researchers/open-research/open-source-software-code/. Retrieved 30 April 2024. 
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Moynihan, G. (7 July 2020). "The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Research Software Engineering: From PhD to RSE". Invenia Blog. Invenia Technical Computing Corporation. https://invenia.github.io/blog/2020/07/07/software-engineering/. 
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Woolston, Chris (31 May 2022). "Why science needs more research software engineers" (in en). Nature: d41586–022–01516-2. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-01516-2. ISSN 0028-0836. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01516-2. 
  14. ↑ "RSE@KIT". Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. 20 February 2024. https://www.rse-community.kit.edu/index.php. Retrieved 01 May 2024. 
  15. ↑ "Purdue Center for Research Software Engineering". Purdue University. 2024. https://www.rcac.purdue.edu/rse. Retrieved 01 May 2024. 
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Cohen, Jeremy; Katz, Daniel S.; Barker, Michelle; Chue Hong, Neil; Haines, Robert; Jay, Caroline (1 January 2021). "The Four Pillars of Research Software Engineering". IEEE Software 38 (1): 97–105. doi:10.1109/MS.2020.2973362. ISSN 0740-7459. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8994167/. 
  17. ↑ Hasselbring, Wilhelm; Carr, Leslie; Hettrick, Simon; Packer, Heather; Tiropanis, Thanassis (25 February 2020). "From FAIR research data toward FAIR and open research software" (in en). it - Information Technology 62 (1): 39–47. doi:10.1515/itit-2019-0040. ISSN 2196-7032. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/itit-2019-0040/html. 
  18. ↑ Ghiringhelli, Luca M.; Baldauf, Carsten; Bereau, Tristan; Brockhauser, Sandor; Carbogno, Christian; Chamanara, Javad; Cozzini, Stefano; Curtarolo, Stefano et al. (14 September 2023). "Shared metadata for data-centric materials science" (in en). Scientific Data 10 (1): 626. doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02501-8. ISSN 2052-4463. PMC PMC10502089. PMID 37709811. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02501-8. 
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Fitschen, Timm; tom Wörden, Henrik; Schlemmer, Alexander; Spreckelsen, Florian; Hornung, Daniel (12 October 2022). "Agile Research Data Management with FDOs using LinkAhead". Research Ideas and Outcomes 8: e96075. doi:10.3897/rio.8.e96075. ISSN 2367-7163. https://riojournal.com/article/96075/. 
  20. ↑ Weigel, Tobias; Schwardmann, Ulrich; Klump, Jens; Bendoukha, Sofiane; Quick, Robert (1 January 2020). "Making Data and Workflows Findable for Machines" (in en). Data Intelligence 2 (1-2): 40–46. doi:10.1162/dint_a_00026. ISSN 2641-435X. https://direct.mit.edu/dint/article/2/1-2/40-46/9994. 
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 Aggour, Kareem S.; Kumar, Vijay S.; Gupta, Vipul K.; Gabaldon, Alfredo; Cuddihy, Paul; Mulwad, Varish (9 April 2024). "Semantics-Enabled Data Federation: Bringing Materials Scientists Closer to FAIR Data" (in en). Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation. doi:10.1007/s40192-024-00348-4. ISSN 2193-9764. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40192-024-00348-4. 
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Grobe, Peter; Baum, Roman; Bhatty, Philipp; Köhler, Christian; Meid, Sandra; Quast, Björn; Vogt, Lars (26 June 2019). "From Data to Knowledge: A semantic knowledge graph application for curating specimen data" (in en). Biodiversity Information Science and Standards 3: e37412. doi:10.3897/biss.3.37412. ISSN 2535-0897. https://biss.pensoft.net/article/37412/. 
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 Rocca-Serra, Philippe; Sansone, Susanna-Assunta; Gu, Wei; Welter, Danielle; Abbassi Daloii, Tooba; Portell-Silva, Laura (30 June 2022). "FAIR and Knowledge graphs". D2.1 FAIR Cookbook. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.6783564. https://zenodo.org/record/6783564. 
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Tomlinson, E. (28 July 2023). "RDF Knowledge Graph Databases: A Better Choice for Life Science Lab Software" (PDF). Semaphore Solutions, Inc. https://21624527.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/21624527/Resources/RDF%20Knowledge%20Graph%20Databases%20White%20Paper.pdf. Retrieved 01 May 2024. 
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Deagen, Michael E.; McCusker, Jamie P.; Fateye, Tolulomo; Stouffer, Samuel; Brinson, L. Cate; McGuinness, Deborah L.; Schadler, Linda S. (27 May 2022). "FAIR and Interactive Data Graphics from a Scientific Knowledge Graph" (in en). Scientific Data 9 (1): 239. doi:10.1038/s41597-022-01352-z. ISSN 2052-4463. PMC PMC9142568. PMID 35624233. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01352-z. 
  26. ↑ Brandizi, Marco; Singh, Ajit; Rawlings, Christopher; Hassani-Pak, Keywan (25 September 2018). "Towards FAIRer Biological Knowledge Networks Using a Hybrid Linked Data and Graph Database Approach" (in en). Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics 15 (3): 20180023. doi:10.1515/jib-2018-0023. ISSN 1613-4516. PMC PMC6340125. PMID 30085931. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jib-2018-0023/html. 
  27. ↑ de Visser, Casper; Johansson, Lennart F.; Kulkarni, Purva; Mei, Hailiang; Neerincx, Pieter; Joeri van der Velde, K.; Horvatovich, Péter; van Gool, Alain J. et al. (28 September 2023). Palagi, Patricia M.. ed. "Ten quick tips for building FAIR workflows" (in en). PLOS Computational Biology 19 (9): e1011369. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011369. ISSN 1553-7358. PMC PMC10538699. PMID 37768885. https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011369. 
  28. ↑ Schröder, Max; Staehlke, Susanne; Groth, Paul; Nebe, J. Barbara; Spors, Sascha; Krüger, Frank (1 December 2022). "Structure-based knowledge acquisition from electronic lab notebooks for research data provenance documentation" (in en). Journal of Biomedical Semantics 13 (1): 4. doi:10.1186/s13326-021-00257-x. ISSN 2041-1480. PMC PMC8802522. PMID 35101121. https://jbiomedsem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13326-021-00257-x. 
  29. ↑ Hiniduma, Kaveen; Byna, Suren; Bez, Jean Luca (2024). "Data Readiness for AI: A 360-Degree Survey". arXiv. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2404.05779. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05779. 
  30. ↑ Fletcher, Lydia (16 April 2024). FAIR Re-use: Implications for AI-Readiness. The University Of Texas At Austin, The University Of Texas At Austin. doi:10.26153/TSW/51475. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/124873. 
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 Olsen, C. (1 September 2023). "Embracing FAIR Data on the Path to AI-Readiness". Pharma's Almanac. https://www.pharmasalmanac.com/articles/embracing-fair-data-on-the-path-to-ai-readiness. Retrieved 03 May 2024. 
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 32.2 32.3 Huerta, E. A.; Blaiszik, Ben; Brinson, L. Catherine; Bouchard, Kristofer E.; Diaz, Daniel; Doglioni, Caterina; Duarte, Javier M.; Emani, Murali et al. (26 July 2023). "FAIR for AI: An interdisciplinary and international community building perspective" (in en). Scientific Data 10 (1): 487. doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02298-6. ISSN 2052-4463. PMC PMC10372139. PMID 37495591. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02298-6. 
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Maxwell, Lauren; Shreedhar, Priya; Dauga, Delphine; McQuilton, Peter; Terry, Robert F; Denisiuk, Alisa; Molnar-Gabor, Fruzsina; Saxena, Abha et al. (1 October 2023). "FAIR, ethical, and coordinated data sharing for COVID-19 response: a scoping review and cross-sectional survey of COVID-19 data sharing platforms and registries" (in en). The Lancet Digital Health 5 (10): e712–e736. doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00129-2. PMC PMC10552001. PMID 37775189. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2589750023001292. 
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 34.2 34.3 Queralt-Rosinach, Núria; Kaliyaperumal, Rajaram; Bernabé, César H.; Long, Qinqin; Joosten, Simone A.; van der Wijk, Henk Jan; Flikkenschild, Erik L.A.; Burger, Kees et al. (1 December 2022). "Applying the FAIR principles to data in a hospital: challenges and opportunities in a pandemic" (in en). Journal of Biomedical Semantics 13 (1): 12. doi:10.1186/s13326-022-00263-7. ISSN 2041-1480. PMC PMC9036506. PMID 35468846. https://jbiomedsem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13326-022-00263-7. 
  35. ↑ Martínez-García, Alicia; Alvarez-Romero, Celia; Román-Villarán, Esther; Bernabeu-Wittel, Máximo; Luis Parra-Calderón, Carlos (1 May 2023). "FAIR principles to improve the impact on health research management outcomes" (in en). Heliyon 9 (5): e15733. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15733. PMC PMC10189186. PMID 37205991. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2405844023029407. 
  36. ↑ Snoeijer, B.; Pasapula, V.; Covucci, A. et al. (2019). "Paper SA04 - Processing big data from multiple sources" (PDF). Proceedings of PHUSE Connect EU 2019. PHUSE Limited. https://phuse.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/Archive/2019/Connect/EU/Amsterdam/PAP_SA04.pdf. Retrieved 03 May 2024. 
  37. ↑ Jang, Joy Bohyun; Pienta, Amy; Levenstein, Margaret; Saul, Joe (6 December 2023). "Restricted data management: the current practice and the future". Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality 13 (2). doi:10.29012/jpc.844. ISSN 2575-8527. PMC PMC10956935. PMID 38515607. https://journalprivacyconfidentiality.org/index.php/jpc/article/view/844. 
Retrieved from "https://www.limswiki.org/index.php?title=User:Shawndouglas/sandbox/sublevel12&oldid=63549"