Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
7
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
7 results for “funding sources”
Data from: Using risk of bias domains to identify opportunities for improvement in food- and nutrition-related research: an evaluation of research type and design, year of publication, and source of funding
Purpose: This retrospective cross-sectional study aimed to identify opportunities for improvement in food and nutrition research by examining risk of bias (ROB) domains. Methods: Rating were extracted from critical appraisal records for 5675 studies used in systematic reviews conducted by three organizations. Variables were as follows: ROB domains defined by the Cochrane Collaboration (Selection, Performance, Detection, Attrition, and Reporting), publication year, research type (intervention or observation) and specific design, funder, and overall quality rating (positive, neutral, or negative). Appraisal instrument questions were mapped to ROB domains. The kappa statistic was used to determine consistency when multiple ROB ratings were available. Binary logistic regression and multinomial logistic regression were used to predict overall quality and ROB domains. Findings: Studies represented a wide variety of research topics (clinical nutrition, food safety, dietary patterns, and dietary supplements) among 15 different research designs with a balance of intervention (49%) and observation (51%) types, published between 1930 and 2015 (64% between 2000-2009). Duplicate ratings (10%) were consistent (k=0.86-0.94). Selection and Performance domain criteria were least likely to be met (57.9% to 60.1%). Selection, Detection, and Performance ROB ratings predicted neutral or negative quality compared to positive quality (p<0.001). Funder, year, and research design were significant predictors of ROB. Some sources of funding predicted increased ROB (p<0.001) for Selection (Interventional: industry only and none/not reported; Observational: other only and none/not reported) and Reporting (Observational: university only and other only). Reduced ROB was predicted by combined and other-only funding for intervention research (p<0.005). Performance ROB domain ratings started significantly improving in 2000; others improved after 1990 (p<0.001). Research designs with higher ROB were nonrandomized intervention and time series designs compared to RCT and prospective cohort designs respectively (p<0.001). Conclusions: Opportunities for improvement in food and nutrition research are in the Selection, Performance, and Detection ROB domains.
supplementary dataset for a paper on funding sources and linkages between funding and authors
<p>this is a supplementary dataset for a manuscript 'Who funds whom exactly? An exploratory study of funding acknowledgements' </p> <p>the first sheet contains the dataset of papers (by scopus id (eid)) manually classified by their funding and the funding sources linked to various authors and countries.</p> <p>the second sheet contains the table with percentages of surveyed countries' papers mentioning funding from different countries, using three approaches to linking papers, authors and funding sources that we investigate. </p>
Data from: Using risk of bias domains to identify opportunities for improvement in food- and nutrition-related research: an evaluation of research type and design, year of publication, and source of funding
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Supplementary material 1 from: Lymer G, Leliaert F, Mergen P, Pijls S (2023) Pre-Commercial Procurement framework and European funding sources for European Research Infrastructure Consortiums: Insights from the DiSSCo ERIC development. Research Ideas and Outcomes 9: e113294. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.9.e113294
Glossary
Supplementary material 2 from: Lymer G, Leliaert F, Mergen P, Pijls S (2023) Pre-Commercial Procurement framework and European funding sources for European Research Infrastructure Consortiums: Insights from the DiSSCo ERIC development. Research Ideas and Outcomes 9: e113294. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.9.e113294
ANNEXE 1: Additional and non-EU funding sources
Data from: The effect of funding sources on donepezil randomised controlled trial outcome: a meta-analysis
Objective: To investigate whether there is a difference in the treatment effect of donepezil on cognition in Alzheimer disease between industry-funded and independent randomised controlled trials. Design: Fixed effects meta-analysis of standardised effects of donepezil on cognition as measured by the Mini Mental State Examination and the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale. Data sources: Studies included in the meta-analyses reported in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technical appraisal 217 updated with new studies through a PubMed search. Eligibility criteria: Inclusion criteria were double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of any length comparing patients diagnosed with probable Alzheimer disease (according to the NINCDS-ADRDA/DSM-III/IV criteria) taking any dosage of donepezil. Studies of combination therapies (eg, donepezil and memantine) were excluded, as were studies that enrolled patients with a diagnosis of Alzheimer disease associated with other disorders (eg, Parkinson's disease and Down's syndrome). Results: Our search strategy identified 14 relevant trials (4 independent) with suitable data. Trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies reported a larger effect of donepezil on standardised cognitive tests than trials published by independent research groups (standardised mean difference (SMD)=0.46, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.55 vs SMD=0.33, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.48, respectively). This difference remained when only data representing change up to 12 weeks from baseline were analysed (industry SMD=0.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.53 vs independent SMD=0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.52). Analysis revealed that the effect of funding as a moderator variable of study heterogeneity was not statistically significant at either time point. Conclusions: The effect size of donepezil on cognition is larger in industry-funded than independent trials and this is not explained by the longer duration of industry-funded trials. The lack of a statistically significant moderator effect may indicate that the differences are due to chance, but may also result from lack of power.
Data from: The effect of funding sources on donepezil randomised controlled trial outcome: a meta-analysis
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.