Supercomputing and Secure Cloud Infrastructures in Biology and Medicine

Literature Cited

1. 1. 

   OECD (Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev.) 2019. OECD health statistics 2019 Health Stat. Database, OECD, Paris accessed Oct 19. https://www.oecd.org/health/health-data.htm
2. 2. 

   Stanford Med 2017. Stanford Medicine 2017 health trends report: harnessing the power of data in health Health Trends Rep., Stanford Med Stanford, CA:
3. 3. 

   Ashley EA. 2016. Towards precision medicine. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17:507–22
   [Google Scholar]
4. 4. 

   Tremblay J, Hamet P. 2013. Role of genomics on the path to personalized medicine. Metabolism 62:S2–5
   [Google Scholar]
5. 5. 

   Hulsen T, Jamuar SS, Moody AR, Karnes JH, Varga O et al. 2019. From big data to precision medicine. Front. Med. 6:34
   [Google Scholar]
6. 6. 

   Ahmad F, Tripathi MM. 2018. Approaches of big data in healthcare: a critical review. Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Sci. 9:122–27
   [Google Scholar]
7. 7. 

   Kong H-J. 2019. Managing unstructured big data in healthcare system. Healthc. Inform. Res. 25:1–2
   [Google Scholar]
8. 8. 

   Meienberg J, Bruggmann R, Oexle K, Matyas G 2016. Clinical sequencing: Is WGS the better WES. ? Hum. Genet. 135:359–62
   [Google Scholar]
9. 9. 

   Lionel AC, Costain G, Monfared N, Walker S, Reuter MS et al. 2018. Improved diagnostic yield compared with targeted gene sequencing panels suggests a role for whole-genome sequencing as a first-tier genetic test. Genet. Med. 20:435–44
   [Google Scholar]
10. 10. 

    Krier JB, Kalia SS, Green RC 2016. Genomic sequencing in clinical practice: applications, challenges, and opportunities. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 18:299–312
    [Google Scholar]
11. 11. 

    Weinstein J, Collisson EA, Mills GB, Shaw KRM, Ozenberger BA et al. 2013. The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan-Cancer analysis project. Nat. Genet. 45:1113–20
    [Google Scholar]
12. 12. 

    Bailey MH, Tokheim C, Porta-Pardo E, Sengupta S, Bertrand D et al. 2018. Comprehensive characterization of cancer driver genes and mutations. Cell 173:371–85
    [Google Scholar]
13. 13. 

    Arora NS, Davis JK, Kirby C, McGuire AL, Green RC et al. 2017. Communication challenges for nongeneticist physicians relaying clinical genomic results. Pers. Med. 14:423–31
    [Google Scholar]
14. 14. 

    Hasin Y, Seldin M, Lusis A 2017. Multi-omics approaches to disease. Genome Biol 18:83
    [Google Scholar]
15. 15. 

    Hickey H. 2006. Bringing supercomputers to life (sciences). Biomed. Comput. Rev. 2:7–15
    [Google Scholar]
16. 16. 

    Chandak S, Tatwawadi K, Ochoa I, Hernaez M, Weissman T 2018. SPRING: a next-generation compressor for FASTQ data. Bioinformatics 35:2674–76
    [Google Scholar]
17. 17. 

    Stephens ZD, Lee SY, Faghri F, Campbell RH, Zhai C et al. 2015. Big data: astronomical or genomical. ? PLOS Biol 13:e1002195
    [Google Scholar]
18. 18. 

    Hernaez M, Pavlichin D, Weissman T, Ochoa I 2019. Genomic data compression. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Data Sci. 2:19–37
    [Google Scholar]
19. 19. 

    Tang H, Jiang X, Wang X, Wang S, Sofia H et al. 2016. Protecting genomic data analytics in the cloud: state of the art and opportunities. BMC Med. Genom. 9:63
    [Google Scholar]
20. 20. 

    Conesa A, Beck S. 2019. Making multi-omics data accessible to researchers. Sci. Data 6:251
    [Google Scholar]
21. 21. 

    Schatz MC, Langmead B. 2013. The DNA data deluge: fast, efficient genome sequencing machines are spewing out more data than geneticists can analyze. IEEE Spectr 50:26–33
    [Google Scholar]
22. 22. 

    Merelli I. 2018. Infrastructure for high-performance computing: grids and grid computing. Encyclopedia of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology: ABC of Bioinformatics S Ranganathan, M Gribskov, K Nakai, C Schönbach 230–35 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
23. 23. 

    Raj R, Kaprio J, Korja M, Mikkonen ED, Jousilahti P, Siironen J 2017. Risk of hospitalization with neurodegenerative disease after moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury in the working-age population: a retrospective cohort study using the Finnish national health registries. PLOS Med 14:e1002316
    [Google Scholar]
24. 24. 

    Friberg L, Tabrizi F, Englund A 2016. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation is associated with lower incidence of stroke and death: data from Swedish health registries. Eur. Heart J. 37:2478–87
    [Google Scholar]
25. 25. 

    Schmidt M, Schmidt SA, Sandegaard JL, Ehrenstein V, Pedersen L, Sorensen HT 2015. The Danish National Patient Registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential. Clin. Epidemiol. 7:449–90
    [Google Scholar]
26. 26. 

    RKKP (Reg. Klin. Kvalitetsudviklingsprogr.) 2019. Introduction to RKKP https://www.rkkp.dk/in-english/
27. 27. 

    Buske OJ, Girdea M, Dumitriu S, Gallinger B, Hartley T et al. 2015. PhenomeCentral: a portal for phenotypic and genotypic matchmaking of patients with rare genetic diseases. Hum. Mutat. 36:931–40
    [Google Scholar]
28. 28. 

    Chatzimichali EA, Brent S, Hutton B, Perrett D, Wright CF et al. 2015. Facilitating collaboration in rare genetic disorders through effective matchmaking in DECIPHER. Hum. Mutat. 36:941–49
    [Google Scholar]
29. 29. 

    Fokkema IF, Taschner PE, Schaafsma GC, Celli J, Laros JF, den Dunnen JT 2011. LOVD v.2.0: the next generation in gene variant databases. Hum. Mutat. 32:557–63
    [Google Scholar]
30. 30. 

    Landrum MJ, Lee JM, Benson M, Brown GR, Chao C et al. 2018. ClinVar: improving access to variant interpretations and supporting evidence. Nucleic Acids Res 46:D1062–67
    [Google Scholar]
31. 31. 

    Njolstad PR, Andreassen OA, Brunak S, Borglum AD, Dillner J et al. 2019. Roadmap for a precision-medicine initiative in the Nordic region. Nat. Genet. 51:924–30
    [Google Scholar]
32. 32. 

    Ceruzzi PE. 2003. A History of Modern Computing Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
33. 33. 

    Thomas J. 2019. DOE/NNSA, Lab announce partnership with Cray to develop NNSA's first exascale supercomputer News Release, Aug. 13, Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab Livermore, CA: https://www.llnl.gov/news/doennsa-lab-announce-partnership-cray-develop-nnsas-first-exascale-supercomputer
34. 34. 

    Navale V, Bourne PE. 2018. Cloud computing applications for biomedical science: a perspective. PLOS Comput. Biol. 14:e1006144
    [Google Scholar]
35. 35. 

    Mell P, Grance T. 2011. The NIST definition of cloud computing Special Pub. 800-145, Inf. Technol. Lab., Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol Gaithersburg, MD:
36. 36. 

    Hum. Microbiome Proj 2013. Human Microbiome Project Project Dataset, Amazon Web Serv Seattle, WA: updated Jan. 2018. https://aws.amazon.com/datasets/human-microbiome-project/
37. 37. 

    AWS (Amazon Web Serv.) 2014. Novartis case study Case Study, Amazon Web. Serv Seattle, WA: https://aws.amazon.com/it/solutions/case-studies/novartis/
38. 38. 

    Off. Data Sci. Strateg 2019. About the STRIDES Initiative Media Resour., Off. Data Sci. Strateg., Natl. Inst. Health Bethesda, MD: https://datascience.nih.gov/strides
39. 39. 

    Malin BA, Emam KE, O'Keefe CM 2013. Biomedical data privacy: problems, perspectives, and recent advances. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 20:2–6
    [Google Scholar]
40. 40. 

    Marozzo F, Paolo T. 2018. Infrastructures for high-performance computing: cloud computing development environments. Encyclopedia of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology: ABC of Bioinformatics S Ranganathan, M Gribsov, K Nakai, C Schönbach 247–51 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
41. 41. 

    Descartes Labs 2019. Thunder from the cloud: 40,000 cores running in concert on AWS. Meditations Blog, Jun. 19. https://medium.com/descarteslabs-team/thunder-from-the-cloud-40-000-cores-running-in-concert-on-aws-bf1610679978
    [Google Scholar]
42. 42. 

    Barrett A, Basilyan M. 2017. 220,000 cores and counting: MIT math professor breaks record for largest ever Compute Engine job. Google Cloud Platform Blog April 20. https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/220000-cores-and-counting-mit-math-professor-breaks-record-for-largest-ever-compute-engine-job
    [Google Scholar]
43. 43. 

    Milne R, Morley KI, Howard H, Niemiec E, Nicol D et al. 2019. Trust in genomic data sharing among members of the general public in the UK, USA, Canada and Australia. Hum. Genet. 138:1237–46
    [Google Scholar]
44. 44. 

    Krahe M, Milligan E, Reilly S 2019. Personal health information in research: perceived risk, trustworthiness and opinions from patients attending a tertiary healthcare facility. J. Biomed. Inform. 95:103222
    [Google Scholar]
45. 45. 

    McGuire AL, Caulfield T, Cho MK 2008. Research ethics and the challenge of whole-genome sequencing. Nat. Rev. Genet. 9:152–56
    [Google Scholar]
46. 46. 

    Gutmann A, Wagner J, Ali Y, Allen A, Arras J et al. 2012. Privacy and progress in whole genome sequencing White Pap., Pres. Comm. Study Bioeth. Issues Washington, DC:
47. 47. 

    Howard HC, Knoppers BM, Cornel MC, Clayton EW, Sénécal K et al. 2015. Whole-genome sequencing in newborn screening? A statement on the continued importance of targeted approaches in newborn screening programmes. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 23:1593–600
    [Google Scholar]
48. 48. 

    Ayday E, De Cristofaro E, Hubaux J-P, Tsudik G 2015. Whole genome sequencing: revolutionary medicine or privacy nightmare. ? Computer 48:58–66
    [Google Scholar]
49. 49. 

    Barth-Jones D. 2012. The “re-identification” of Governor William Weld's medical information: a critical re-examination of health data identification risks and privacy protections, then and now Work. Pap., Mailman Sch. Public Health, Columbia Univ. July 24 https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2076397
    [Crossref]
50. 50. 

    Eur. Comm 2019. General Data Protection Regulation Legis. Act, Eur. Comm Brussels: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679
51. 51. 

    Calif. Legis 2018. California Consumer Privacy Act Legis. Act, Calif. Legis Sacramento: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375
52. 52. 

    Podlesny NJ, Kayem AVDM, Schorlemer S, Uflacker M 2018. Minimising information loss on anonymised high dimensional data with greedy in-memory processing. DEXA 2018: Database and Expert Systems Applications S Hartman, H Ma, A Hameurlain, G Pernul, R Wagner 85–100 Cham, Switz.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
53. 53. 

    Sweeney L. 2002. Achieving k-anonymity privacy protection using generalization and suppression. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl.-Based Syst. 10:571–88
    [Google Scholar]
54. 54. 

    Machanavajjhala A, Gehrke J, Kifer D, Venkitasubramaniam M 2006. l-diversity: privacy beyond k-anonymity. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE '06) Pap. 24 Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Comput. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
55. 55. 

    Li N, Li T, Venkatasubramanian S 2007. t-closeness: privacy beyond k-anonymity and l-diversity. Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Data Engineering106–15 Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Comput. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
56. 56. 

    Islam MZ, Brankovic L. 2011. Privacy preserving data mining: a noise addition framework using a novel clustering technique. Knowl.-Based Syst. 24:1214–23
    [Google Scholar]
57. 57. 

    Meyerson A, Williams R. 2004. On the complexity of optimal k-anonymity. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems223–28 New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
    [Google Scholar]
58. 58. 

    Dwork C. 2008. Differential privacy: a survey of results. Theory and Applications of Models of Computation M Agrawal, D Du, Z Duan, A Li 1–19 Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
59. 59. 

    Bhaskar R, Laxman S, Smith A, Thakurta A 2010. Discovering frequent patterns in sensitive data. Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining503–12 New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
    [Google Scholar]
60. 60. 

    Dwork C. 2011. Differential privacy. Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security HCA van Tilborg, S Jajodia 338–40 Boston: Springer. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
61. 61. 

    Kifer D, Machanavajjhala A. 2011. No free lunch in data privacy. Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data193–204 New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
    [Google Scholar]
62. 62. 

    El Emam K, Jonker E, Arbuckle L, Malin B 2011. A systematic review of re-identification attacks on health data. PLOS ONE 6:e28071
    [Google Scholar]
63. 63. 

    Mohammed N, Fung B, Hung PCK, Lee C-K 2009. Anonymizing healthcare data: a case study on the blood transfusion service. Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining1285–94 New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
    [Google Scholar]
64. 64. 

    Mohammed N, Fung B, Hung PCK, Lee C-K 2010. Centralized and distributed anonymization for high-dimensional healthcare data. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) Art. 18 New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
    [Google Scholar]
65. 65. 

    Podlesny NJ, Kayem AVDM, Meinel C 2019. Identifying data exposure across high-dimensional health data silos through Bayesian networks optimised by multigrid and manifold. IEEE 17th International Conference on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing (DASC)556–63 Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Comput. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
66. 66. 

    Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M et al. 2016. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3:160018
    [Google Scholar]
67. 67. 

    Eur. Comm 2017. Pooling data to combat rare diseases News Release, Dec. 15. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/pooling-data-combat-rare-diseases
68. 68. 

    EJP RD (Eur. Jt. Progr. Rare Dis.) 2019. About EJP RD Media Resour., Eur. Jt. Progr. Rare Dis https://www.ejprarediseases.org/index.php/about/
69. 69. 

    ELIXIR 2017. ELIXIR position paper on FAIR Data Management in the life sciences Position Pap., Sept. 7, ELIXIR Hinxton, UK: https://elixir-europe.org/system/files/elixir_statement_on_fair_data_management.pdf
70. 70. 

    Ison J, Ienasescu H, Chmura P, Rydza E, Menager H et al. 2019. The bio.tools registry of software tools and data resources for the life sciences. Genome Biol 20:164
    [Google Scholar]
71. 71. 

    Jensen AB, Moseley PL, Oprea TI, Ellesoe SG, Eriksson R et al. 2014. Temporal disease trajectories condensed from population-wide registry data covering 6.2 million patients. Nat. Commun. 5:4022
    [Google Scholar]
72. 72. 

    Nielsen AB, Thorsen-Meyer H-C, Belling K, Nielsen AP, Thomas CE et al. 2019. Survival prediction in intensive-care units based on aggregation of long-term disease history and acute physiology: a retrospective study of the Danish National Patient Registry and electronic patient records. Lancet Digital Health 1:e78–89
    [Google Scholar]
73. 73. 

    Cook CE, Bergman MT, Finn RD, Cochrane G, Birney E, Apweiler R 2016. The European Bioinformatics Institute in 2016: data growth and integration. Nucleic Acids Res 44:D20–26
    [Google Scholar]
74. 74. 

    Linden M, Prochazka M, Lappalainen I, Bucik D, Vyskocil P et al. 2018. Common ELIXIR service for researcher authentication and authorisation. F1000Research 7:1199
    [Google Scholar]
75. 75. 

    Saunders G, Baudis M, Becker R, Beltran S, Béroud C et al. 2019. Leveraging European infrastructures to access 1 million human genomes by 2022. Nat. Rev. Genet. 20:693–701
    [Google Scholar]
76. 76. 

    Moran AE, Forouzanfar MH, Roth GA, Mensah GA, Ezzati M et al. 2014. The global burden of ischemic heart disease in 1990 and 2010: the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Circulation 129:1493–501
    [Google Scholar]
77. 77. 

    Eur. Heart Netw 2017. European Cardiovascular Disease Statistics 2017 Brussels: Eur. Heart Netw http://www.ehnheart.org/cvd-statistics.html
78. 78. 

    Agile Alliance 2001. Manifesto for agile software development Unpubl. Manif Agile Alliance, Corryton, TN: https://agilemanifesto.org/
79. 79. 

    Dingsøyr T, Nerur S, Balijepally V, Moe NB 2012. A decade of agile methodologies: towards explaining agile software development. J. Syst. Softw. 85:1213–21
    [Google Scholar]
80. 80. 

    Crew B. 2019. Lili Milani banks Estonia's genomic potential. Nature 569:S16–17
    [Google Scholar]
81. 81. 

    Leitsalu L, Haller T, Esko T, Tammesoo ML, Alavere H et al. 2015. Cohort profile: Estonian Biobank of the Estonian Genome Center, University of Tartu. Int. J. Epidemiol. 44:1137–47
    [Google Scholar]
82. 82. 

    NHS (Natl. Health Serv.) Engl 100,000 Genomes Project Media Resour., Natl. Health Serv Engl., London: https://www.england.nhs.uk/genomics/100000-genomes-project/
83. 83. 

    Samuel GN, Farsides B. 2018. Genomics England's implementation of its public engagement strategy: blurred boundaries between engagement for the United Kingdom's 100,000 Genomes project and the need for public support. Public Underst. Sci. 27:352–64
    [Google Scholar]
84. 84. 

    Genom. Engl 2018. The UK has sequenced 100,000 whole genomes in the NHS News Release, Dec. 5., Genom Engl., London: https://www.genomicsengland.co.uk/the-uk-has-sequenced-100000-whole-genomes-in-the-nhs/