{"doi":"10.1093/jamia/ocad086","title":"Dementia and electronic health record phenotypes: a scoping review of available phenotypes and opportunities for future research","abstract":"OBJECTIVE: We performed a scoping review of algorithms using electronic health record (EHR) data to identify patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD), to advance their use in research and clinical care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Starting with a previous scoping review of EHR phenotypes, we performed a cumulative update (April 2020 through March 1, 2023) using Pubmed, PheKB, and expert review with exclusive focus on ADRD identification. We included algorithms using EHR data alone or in combination with non-EHR data and characterized whether they identified patients at high risk of or with a current diagnosis of ADRD. RESULTS: For our cumulative focused update, we reviewed 271 titles meeting our search criteria, 49 abstracts, and 26 full text papers. We identified 8 articles from the original systematic review, 8 from our new search, and 4 recommended by an expert. We identified 20 papers describing 19 unique EHR phenotypes for ADRD: 7 algorithms identifying patients with diagnosed dementia and 12 algorithms identifying patients at high risk of dementia that prioritize sensitivity over specificity. Reference standards range from only using other EHR data to in-person cognitive screening. CONCLUSION: A variety of EHR-based phenotypes are available for use in identifying populations with or at high-risk of developing ADRD. This review provides comparative detail to aid in choosing the best algorithm for research, clinical care, and population health projects based on the use case and available data. Future research may further improve the design and use of algorithms by considering EHR data provenance.","journal":"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association","year":2023,"id":324660,"datarank":1.0335537675251234,"base_score":3.5263605246161616,"endowment":3.5263605246161616,"self_citation_contribution":0.5289540786924243,"citation_network_contribution":0.5045996888326991,"self_endowment_contribution":0.5289540786924243,"citer_contribution":0.5045996888326991,"corpus_percentile":80.42082463061809,"corpus_rank":2532,"citation_count":33,"citer_count":31,"citers_with_citation_signal":19,"citers_with_endowment":19,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"is_dataset":true,"is_dataset_confidence":0.8666,"is_data_producer":false,"deposit_databanks":null,"is_oa":true,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":"2023-01-01","fair_score":4.1667,"fair_percentile":4.891470498318557,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":270944,"name":"Joshua M. Pevnick","orcid":"0000-0003-0621-1485","position":1,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":396957,"name":"Antonia V. Bennett","orcid":"0000-0002-8968-4511","position":2,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":510422,"name":"V. G. Vinod Vydiswaran","orcid":"0000-0002-3122-1936","position":3,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":396960,"name":"Christine S. Ritchie","orcid":"0000-0002-4881-9416","position":4,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":505334,"name":"Anne M. Walling","orcid":"0000-0001-6026-3249","position":0,"is_corresponding":true}],"reference_count":55,"raw_metadata":null,"created_at":"2026-07-19T01:08:16.809511Z","pmid":"37252836","pmcid":"PMC10280354","fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"oa_status":null,"license":null,"views":0,"total_file_size_bytes":0,"version_count":0,"fair_f":0.0,"fair_a":0.0,"fair_i":20.0,"fair_r":8.3333,"fair_zscore":-1.1986,"fair_rationale":{"fair_score":4.17,"has_llm":true,"taxonomy_version":"fair_taxonomy_v5","dimensions":{"F":{"name":"Findable","score":0.0,"criteria":[{"key":"f_dataset_pid","label":"Persistent identifier for the data","kind":"llm","weight":2.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper does not provide a persistent identifier for its own dataset.","anchors":["RDA-F1-01D — FAIR Data Maturity Model: 'Data is identified by a persistent identifier' (priorit","RDA-F1-02D — FAIR Data Maturity Model: 'Data is identified by a globally unique identifier'","FsF-F1-02D — F-UJI/FAIRsFAIR: 'Data is assigned a persistent identifier'"],"scored":true,"signal":null},{"key":"f_repository_named","label":"Named repository","kind":"llm","weight":2.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"No repository is named as holding the study's own data.","anchors":["RDA-F4-01M — FAIR Data Maturity Model: metadata is offered so it can be harvested and indexed (","NIH DMS Policy Element 4 (NOT-OD-21-014) — name the repository where data will be archived","NSTC Desirable Characteristics of Data Repositories (2022) — 'Long-Term Sustainability', 'Reten"],"scored":true,"signal":null},{"key":"f_data_availability_statement","label":"Data-availability statement","kind":"llm","weight":2.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper's data availability statement refers to the public data it analyzed, not to its own study data. [majority verdict 'no' (4/5 passes agreed)]","anchors":["Colavizza, Hrynaszkiewicz, Staden, Whitaker & McGillivray (2020), 'The citation advantage of li","Springer Nature research data policy — Data Availability Statements: standard statement templat","RDA-F3-01M — metadata clearly and explicitly includes the identifier of the data it describes"],"scored":false,"signal":null},{"key":"f_discovery_metadata","label":"Description of the dataset as an object","kind":"llm","weight":2.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper does not itemize its own dataset in a section, table, or list. [majority verdict 'no' (4/5 passes agreed)]","anchors":["RDA-F2-01M — 'Rich metadata is provided to allow discovery' (priority Essential)","FsF-F2-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata includes descriptive core elements to support data findability'","FsF-R1-01MD — F-UJI: 'Metadata specifies the content of the data'"],"scored":false,"signal":null},{"key":"f_dataset_cited","label":"Dataset formally cited","kind":"llm","weight":1.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"No identifier for the study's own dataset appears anywhere in the paper.","anchors":["FORCE11 Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles (2014) — data should be cited as a first-","RDA-F3-01M — metadata clearly and explicitly includes the identifier of the data it describes","FsF-F3-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata includes the identifier of the data it describes'"],"scored":true,"signal":null}]},"A":{"name":"Accessible","score":0.0,"criteria":[{"key":"a_data_openly_accessible","label":"Access route free of preconditions","kind":"llm","weight":2.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper does not provide a followable route to its own data.","anchors":["RDA-A1.1-01D — 'Data is accessible through a free access protocol'","FsF-A1-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata contains access level and access conditions of the data'","NSTC Desirable Characteristics of Data Repositories (2022) — 'Free and Easy Access'"],"scored":true,"signal":null},{"key":"a_access_conditions_stated","label":"Access level labelled","kind":"llm","weight":1.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper does not label the access level of its own data.","anchors":["FsF-A1-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata contains access level and access conditions of the data'","RDA-A1-01M — metadata contains information to enable the user to get access to the data","COAR Controlled Vocabularies — Access Rights v1.0 (open / embargoed / restricted / metadata-onl"],"scored":false,"signal":null},{"key":"a_controlled_access_for_sensitive","label":"Gatekeeper for sensitive data","kind":"llm","weight":0.5,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper contains no sensitive data and no gatekeeper is named.","anchors":["NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy (NOT-OD-14-124) — controlled-access via a Data Access Committee","RDA-A1.2-01D — 'Data is accessible through an access protocol that supports authentication and ","NIH DMS Policy Element 5 (NOT-OD-21-014) — Access, Distribution, or Reuse Considerations (conse"],"scored":false,"signal":null},{"key":"a_timeline_retention","label":"Availability timing & retention","kind":"llm","weight":0.5,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper states nothing about the timing or persistence of its own data.","anchors":["NIH DMS Plan Element 4 (NOT-OD-21-014) — Data Preservation, Access, and Associated Timelines","NSTC Desirable Characteristics (2022), Organizational Infrastructure: 'Retention Policy'","RDA-A2-01M — 'Metadata is guaranteed to remain available after data is no longer available'"],"scored":false,"signal":null}]},"I":{"name":"Interoperable","score":20.0,"criteria":[{"key":"i_open_nonproprietary_format","label":"Open file format","kind":"llm","weight":1.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper names no file format for its own data.","anchors":["FsF-R1.3-02D — F-UJI: 'Data is available in a file format recommended by the target research co","RDA-R1.3-02D — data is expressed in a machine-understandable community standard","RDA-I1-01D — data uses a knowledge representation expressed in a standardised format"],"scored":true,"signal":null},{"key":"i_community_standard_vocabulary","label":"Community standard / vocabulary","kind":"llm","weight":1.0,"fraction":0.5,"verdict":"partial","evidence":"We used the Arksey and O’Malley framework (5 stages) and PRISMA checklist for Scoping Reviews","grounded":true,"rationale":"The paper names a manuscript reporting guideline (PRISMA) as a standard for the review methodology, which is a partial match for a data community standard. [majority verdict 'partial' (3/5 passes agreed)]","anchors":["RDA-R1.3-01M — 'Metadata complies with a community standard' (priority Essential)","RDA-R1.3-01D — 'Data complies with a community standard'","RDA-I2-01M — '(Meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles'"],"scored":false,"signal":null},{"key":"i_qualified_references","label":"Identifiers for the resources the data depend on","kind":"llm","weight":0.5,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper does not provide identifiers for external resources that its own data depend on.","anchors":["RDA-I3-01M — '(meta)data include references to other (meta)data'","RDA-I3-03M — 'metadata includes qualified references to other metadata'","FsF-I3-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata includes links between the data and its related entities'"],"scored":false,"signal":null}]},"R":{"name":"Reusable","score":8.33,"criteria":[{"key":"r_reuse_license","label":"Reuse licence","kind":"llm","weight":2.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"No license or terms are named for the study's own data.","anchors":["RDA-R1.1-01M — 'Metadata includes information about the licence under which the data can be reu","RDA-R1.1-02M — 'Metadata refers to a standard reuse licence'","RDA-R1.1-03M — 'Metadata refers to a machine-understandable reuse licence'"],"scored":true,"signal":null},{"key":"r_provenance_methods","label":"Provenance of the data","kind":"llm","weight":1.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper describes its methods only in generic terms, without naming specific instruments or software versions for its own data production. [majority verdict 'no' (4/5 passes agreed)]","anchors":["RDA-R1.2-01M — 'Metadata includes provenance information according to community- specific standa","FsF-R1.2-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata includes provenance information about data creation or generati","W3C PROV-O (W3C Recommendation, 2013) — the entity/activity/agent model of provenance"],"scored":false,"signal":null},{"key":"r_documentation_codebook","label":"Documentation / codebook","kind":"llm","weight":1.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper does not mention a documentation object accompanying its own data. [majority verdict 'no' (4/5 passes agreed)]","anchors":["RDA-R1-01M — '(Meta)data are richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attribu","FsF-R1-01MD — F-UJI: 'Metadata specifies the content of the data'","NIH DMS Policy Element 3 (NOT-OD-21-014) — Standards (documentation and metadata to accompany t"],"scored":false,"signal":null},{"key":"r_versioning","label":"Snapshot identified","kind":"llm","weight":0.5,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"No version token or date is given for the study's own data.","anchors":["DataCite Metadata Schema 4.6 — the 'Version' property","RDA-R1.2-01M — provenance information (which version was used is provenance)","NSTC Desirable Characteristics of Data Repositories (2022) — 'Provenance', 'Retention Policy'"],"scored":true,"signal":null},{"key":"x_code_availability","label":"Analysis code available","kind":"llm","weight":1.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper does not mention any code written for this study.","anchors":["NIH DMS Policy Element 2 (NOT-OD-21-014) — 'Related Tools, Software and/or Code'","FAIR4RS Principles v1.0 (Chue Hong et al., 2022; RDA/FORCE11/ReSA) — FAIR Principles for Resear","FORCE11 Software Citation Principles (Smith, Katz & Niemeyer, 2016, PeerJ CS 2:e86)"],"scored":true,"signal":null},{"key":"x_funding_attribution","label":"Funder and award number","kind":"llm","weight":0.5,"fraction":1.0,"verdict":"yes","evidence":"This work was funded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) of the National Institutes of Health under Award 5U54AG063546","grounded":true,"rationale":"The paper includes a specific grant number for its funding.","anchors":["DataCite Metadata Schema 4.6 — 'FundingReference' property (funderName, funderIdentifier, award","Crossref Funder Registry — canonical funder identifiers for funding metadata","RDA-F2-01M — rich metadata provided to allow discovery (funding is part of the descriptive reco"],"scored":true,"signal":null}]}},"actions":[{"key":"f_dataset_pid","dimension":"F","label":"Persistent identifier for the data","action":"Mint or cite a persistent identifier for the dataset — a repository DOI or an accession from a registered repository — and print it in the paper. A bare URL is not persistent: it is the single most common cause of a dead data link five years after publication. For clinical / human-subjects data, deposit in dbGaP or the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA).","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper does not provide a persistent identifier for its own dataset.","gain":16.67,"priority":"essential","scored":true},{"key":"f_repository_named","dimension":"F","label":"Named repository","action":"Deposit the data in a repository registered in re3data/FAIRsharing (a domain repository such as GEO, SRA, dbGaP, PRIDE, or a generalist such as Zenodo, Dryad, Dataverse) and name it explicitly in the paper. A lab website is not an archive: it has no retention commitment and no accession. For clinical / human-subjects data, deposit in dbGaP or the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA).","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"No repository is named as holding the study's own data.","gain":16.67,"priority":"essential","scored":true},{"key":"a_data_openly_accessible","dimension":"A","label":"Access route free of preconditions","action":"Remove the precondition or justify it. Release the data at publication with no embargo, no registration wall, and no approval step — NIH's zero-embargo public- access rule (NOT-OD-25-101) has already made 'available at publication' the federal baseline for the article; the data should not lag behind it. For clinical / human-subjects data, deposit in dbGaP or the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA).","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper does not provide a followable route to its own data.","gain":16.67,"priority":"essential","scored":true},{"key":"r_reuse_license","dimension":"R","label":"Reuse licence","action":"Attach a standard, machine-readable open licence to the deposit — CC0 or CC BY, which is what Horizon Europe and most funders expect — and print the licence identifier in the paper. 'Free to use' is not a licence: it grants nothing a reuser's institution can rely on.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"No license or terms are named for the study's own data.","gain":16.67,"priority":"essential","scored":true},{"key":"f_dataset_cited","dimension":"F","label":"Dataset formally cited","action":"Cite the dataset in the reference list like a publication — creator, year, title, repository, DOI/accession — and cite it in-text where it is used. Only a reference- list entry is machine-readable to Crossref/DataCite, and only a citation lets the data earn credit. Cite the clinical / human-subjects repository accession (e.g. from dbGaP or the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA)) in the reference list.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"No identifier for the study's own dataset appears anywhere in the paper.","gain":8.33,"priority":"important","scored":true},{"key":"i_open_nonproprietary_format","dimension":"I","label":"Open file format","action":"Release the data in an open, community-standard format (CSV/TSV, JSON, HDF5, NetCDF, FASTQ, VCF, NIfTI…) instead of — or alongside — any proprietary or instrument-native format, and name the format in the paper. A dataset that needs a €2,000 licence to open is not reusable.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper names no file format for its own data.","gain":8.33,"priority":"important","scored":true},{"key":"x_code_availability","dimension":"R","label":"Analysis code available","action":"Publish the analysis code in a public forge, archive a tagged release with a DOI (Zenodo/Software Heritage), and cite that DOI in the paper. NIH DMS Element 2 asks for the tools and code, not only the data — and 'available on request' is not a locator. Archive the analysis code in a versioned repository (GitHub + a Zenodo release DOI).","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper does not mention any code written for this study.","gain":8.33,"priority":"important","scored":true},{"key":"r_versioning","dimension":"R","label":"Snapshot identified","action":"Version the deposit and cite the exact version analysed (a version-specific DOI, or an accession with its version suffix). A reader reproducing your work against 'the current release' is reproducing it against a different dataset.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"No version token or date is given for the study's own data.","gain":4.17,"priority":"useful","scored":true},{"key":"f_data_availability_statement","dimension":"F","label":"Data-availability statement","action":"Replace the statement with the repository template: name the repository and give the accession or DOI (Colavizza category 3). This is the only DAS class associated with a measured citation advantage; 'available on reasonable request' and 'within the article' are not.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper's data availability statement refers to the public data it analyzed, not to its own study data. [majority verdict 'no' (4/5 passes agreed)]","gain":0.0,"priority":"essential","scored":false},{"key":"f_discovery_metadata","dimension":"F","label":"Description of the dataset as an object","action":"Add a 'Data Records' section: itemise every file in the deposit and every variable or sample it holds, with counts and units. Describe the dataset as an object in its own right, not as a by-product of the findings — this is what makes it discoverable to someone who is not looking for your paper.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper does not itemize its own dataset in a section, table, or list. [majority verdict 'no' (4/5 passes agreed)]","gain":0.0,"priority":"essential","scored":false},{"key":"a_access_conditions_stated","dimension":"A","label":"Access level labelled","action":"State the access level in words, using the standard vocabulary: 'These data are open access' / 'These data are controlled access'. A reader — and a harvester — should not have to infer the access level from the presence of a download link.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper does not label the access level of its own data.","gain":0.0,"priority":"important","scored":false},{"key":"i_community_standard_vocabulary","dimension":"I","label":"Community standard / vocabulary","action":"Adopt and NAME your domain's data standard — the minimum-information checklist, metadata schema, or ontology your community uses (MIAME/MINSEQE, ISA-Tab, BIDS, an OBO ontology, HL7 FHIR/OMOP) — and say which one you followed. A reporting checklist standardises your paper; it does nothing for your data. In clinical / human-subjects, describe the data with OMOP CDM, CDISC SDTM or HL7 FHIR.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"partial","current":0.5,"evidence":"We used the Arksey and O’Malley framework (5 stages) and PRISMA checklist for Scoping Reviews","why":"The paper names a manuscript reporting guideline (PRISMA) as a standard for the review methodology, which is a partial match for a data community standard. [majority verdict 'partial' (3/5 passes agreed)]","gain":0.0,"priority":"important","scored":false},{"key":"r_provenance_methods","dimension":"R","label":"Provenance of the data","action":"Name the instruments, kits, and software — with versions — that produced the data, not just the verbs. 'Reads were aligned' is not provenance; 'aligned with STAR v2.7.9a to GRCh38' is, because someone else can rerun it.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper describes its methods only in generic terms, without naming specific instruments or software versions for its own data production. [majority verdict 'no' (4/5 passes agreed)]","gain":0.0,"priority":"important","scored":false},{"key":"r_documentation_codebook","dimension":"R","label":"Documentation / codebook","action":"Ship a README and a data dictionary IN the deposit — every file, every variable, its units, its allowed values, its missing-value codes. It is the cheapest single thing that makes a dataset usable by someone who was not in the lab, and a table buried in the article does not travel with the data.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper does not mention a documentation object accompanying its own data. [majority verdict 'no' (4/5 passes agreed)]","gain":0.0,"priority":"important","scored":false},{"key":"a_controlled_access_for_sensitive","dimension":"A","label":"Gatekeeper for sensitive data","action":"Route sensitive data through an institutional gatekeeper — deposit in a controlled- access repository (dbGaP, EGA) with a Data Access Committee and a published DUA — rather than through the corresponding author's inbox. An author-gated dataset dies with the author's email address, and 'on reasonable request' has been shown repeatedly not to yield data. For sensitive/human clinical / human-subjects data, use a controlled-access repository such as dbGaP or EGA.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper contains no sensitive data and no gatekeeper is named.","gain":0.0,"priority":"useful","scored":false},{"key":"i_qualified_references","dimension":"I","label":"Identifiers for the resources the data depend on","action":"Cite by identifier every resource the data depend on — the source datasets' accessions, the reference build (GRCh38 / GCA_000001405.28), the cohort application number, the code DOI — and register those relations on the dataset record (IsDerivedFrom, IsSupplementTo). A name is not a link: it cannot be resolved, versioned, or followed by a machine.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper does not provide identifiers for external resources that its own data depend on.","gain":0.0,"priority":"useful","scored":false},{"key":"a_timeline_retention","dimension":"A","label":"Availability timing & retention","action":"State when the data become available AND how long they will be retained — cite the repository's preservation policy. NIH DMS Element 4 asks for both; most papers give neither.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper states nothing about the timing or persistence of its own data.","gain":0.0,"priority":"useful","scored":false}],"suggestions":["Mint or cite a persistent identifier for the dataset — a repository DOI or an accession from a registered repository — and print it in the paper. A bare URL is not persistent: it is the single most common cause of a dead data link five years after publication. For clinical / human-subjects data, deposit in dbGaP or the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA).","Deposit the data in a repository registered in re3data/FAIRsharing (a domain repository such as GEO, SRA, dbGaP, PRIDE, or a generalist such as Zenodo, Dryad, Dataverse) and name it explicitly in the paper. A lab website is not an archive: it has no retention commitment and no accession. For clinical / human-subjects data, deposit in dbGaP or the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA).","Remove the precondition or justify it. Release the data at publication with no embargo, no registration wall, and no approval step — NIH's zero-embargo public- access rule (NOT-OD-25-101) has already made 'available at publication' the federal baseline for the article; the data should not lag behind it. For clinical / human-subjects data, deposit in dbGaP or the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA).","Attach a standard, machine-readable open licence to the deposit — CC0 or CC BY, which is what Horizon Europe and most funders expect — and print the licence identifier in the paper. 'Free to use' is not a licence: it grants nothing a reuser's institution can rely on.","Cite the dataset in the reference list like a publication — creator, year, title, repository, DOI/accession — and cite it in-text where it is used. Only a reference- list entry is machine-readable to Crossref/DataCite, and only a citation lets the data earn credit. Cite the clinical / human-subjects repository accession (e.g. from dbGaP or the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA)) in the reference list."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash","agent_version":"fair_agent_v8","fulltext_source":"unpaywall_pdf"},"fair_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash","fair_agent_version":"fair_agent_v8","fair_fulltext_source":"unpaywall_pdf","fair_has_llm":true,"fair_computed_at":"2026-07-20T11:31:41.845686Z","clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}