{"doi":"10.3389/fneur.2020.613607","title":"Early Post-stroke Cognition: In-hospital Predictors and the Association With Functional Outcome","abstract":"Purpose: To characterize and predict early post-stroke cognitive impairment by describing cognitive changes in stroke patients 4–8 weeks post-infarct, determining the relationship between cognitive ability and functional status at this early time point, and identifying the in-hospital risk factors associated with early dysfunction. Materials and Methods: Data were collected for 214 patients with ischemic stroke and 39 non-stroke controls. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) exams were administered at post-hospitalization clinic visits approximately 4–8 weeks after infarct. MoCA scores were compared for patients with: no stroke, minor stroke [NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) < 5], and major stroke. Ordinal logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship between MoCA score and functional status [modified Rankin Scale score (mRS)] at follow-up. Predictors of MoCA < 26 and < 19 (cutoffs for mild and severe cognitive impairment, respectively) at follow-up were identified by multivariable logistic regression using variables available during hospitalization. Results: Post stroke cognitive impairment was common, with 66.8% of patients scoring < 26 on the MoCA and 22.9% < 19. The average total MoCA score at follow-up was 18.7 (SD 7.0) among major strokes, 23.6 (SD 4.8) among minor strokes, and 27.2 (SD 13.0) among non-strokes ( p = <0.0001). The follow-up MoCA score was associated with the follow-up mRS in adjusted analysis (OR 0.69; 95% C.I. 0.59–0.82). Among patients with no prior cognitive impairment ( N = 201), a lack of pre-stroke employment, admission NIHSS > 6, and left-sided infarct predicted a follow-up MoCA < 26 (c-statistic 0.75); while admission NIHSS > 6 and infarct volume > 17 cc predicted a MoCA < 19 (c-statistic 0.75) at follow-up. Conclusion: Many patients experience early post-stroke cognitive dysfunction that significantly impacts function during a critical time period for decision-making regarding return to work and future independence. Dysfunction measured at 4–8 weeks can be predicted during the inpatient hospitalization. These high-risk individuals should be identified for targeted rehabilitation and counseling to improve longer-term post-stroke outcomes.","journal":"Frontiers in Neurology","year":2020,"id":93565,"datarank":1.5900302266307227,"base_score":3.713572066704308,"endowment":3.713572066704308,"self_citation_contribution":0.5570358100056463,"citation_network_contribution":1.0329944166250764,"self_endowment_contribution":0.5570358100056463,"citer_contribution":1.0329944166250764,"corpus_percentile":86.94205925582115,"corpus_rank":1689,"citation_count":40,"citer_count":35,"citers_with_citation_signal":26,"citers_with_endowment":26,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"is_dataset":true,"is_dataset_confidence":0.7622,"is_data_producer":false,"deposit_databanks":null,"is_oa":true,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":"2020-01-01","fair_score":4.1667,"fair_percentile":4.891470498318557,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":468447,"name":"Dania Mallick","orcid":null,"position":1,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":467225,"name":"R. Llinás","orcid":"0000-0002-9161-2699","position":2,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":467226,"name":"Elisabeth B. Marsh","orcid":"0000-0002-2385-5074","position":3,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":467224,"name":"Richa Sharma","orcid":"0000-0003-0798-2353","position":0,"is_corresponding":true}],"reference_count":30,"raw_metadata":null,"created_at":"2026-07-18T22:31:34.149524Z","pmid":"33424761","pmcid":"PMC7787003","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":22.2222,"fair_a":0.0,"fair_i":20.0,"fair_r":16.6667,"fair_zscore":-1.1986,"fair_rationale":{"fair_score":4.17,"has_llm":true,"taxonomy_version":"fair_taxonomy_v5","dimensions":{"F":{"name":"Findable","score":22.22,"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":"No persistent identifier for the data is given; the article's DOI is not the data's identifier.","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":"The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.","grounded":true,"rationale":"No repository is named; the data are held by the authors individually.","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":0.5,"verdict":"partial","evidence":"The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.","grounded":true,"rationale":"The statement points to the authors (Colavizza category 1: data available on request), not a repository record.","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":0.5,"verdict":"partial","evidence":"Data were collected for 214 patients with ischemic stroke and 39 non-stroke controls.","grounded":true,"rationale":"The extent of the data is stated in a single sentence of running prose, but no itemised inventory of files or variables is provided. [majority verdict 'partial' (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 dataset appears anywhere in the paper, neither in the body nor in the reference list.","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":"The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.","grounded":true,"rationale":"The only route is a discretionary request to a person, which is not a followable process; thus verdict is 'no'.","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":"No access-level label is applied to the data; the data availability statement does not use terms like 'open access' or 'publicly available'. [majority verdict 'no' (4/5 passes agreed)]","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":"Any reasonable request for data sharing can be directed to the corresponding author.","grounded":false,"rationale":"The gatekeeper is a natural person (the corresponding author) rather than an institutional committee. [downgraded to 'no' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [majority verdict 'no' (3/5 passes agreed)]","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":"No statement about when the data become available or how long they persist appears in the text. [majority verdict 'no' (4/5 passes agreed)]","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":"No file format is named for the released 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":"This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board and was performed in accordance with STROBE criteria.","grounded":true,"rationale":"STROBE is a manuscript reporting guideline (EQUATOR registry), not a data or metadata standard.","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":"No identifier for an external resource (e.g., another dataset, reference genome, or code) is given.","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":16.67,"criteria":[{"key":"r_reuse_license","label":"Reuse licence","kind":"llm","weight":2.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"No reuse license is stated for the data; the article's CC BY license applies to the article, not the 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":0.5,"verdict":"partial","evidence":"The MoCA was administered by trained clinic personnel who were blinded to the patient’s modified Rankin Scale score during the clinic visit.","grounded":true,"rationale":"The data production method is described in generic terms without naming a specific instrument or kit version. [majority verdict 'partial' (3/5 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":"TABLE 1 | Baseline demographic, clinical, and radiographic characteristics (N = 253).","grounded":false,"rationale":"Variable definitions are provided inside the article (Table 1), not in a separate documentation object shipped with the data. [downgraded to 'no' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [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 pins a snapshot of the 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":"No code locator is provided; the study's own code is not mentioned.","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":"RS reports the following award disclosure: research support, NIH grant U10 NS086729.","grounded":true,"rationale":"A specific award number (NIH grant U10 NS086729) is given for the 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":"No persistent identifier for the data is given; the article's DOI is not the data's identifier.","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":"The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.","why":"No repository is named; the data are held by the authors individually.","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":"The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.","why":"The only route is a discretionary request to a person, which is not a followable process; thus verdict is 'no'.","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 reuse license is stated for the data; the article's CC BY license applies to the article, not the 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 dataset appears anywhere in the paper, neither in the body nor in the reference list.","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":"No file format is named for the released 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":"No code locator is provided; the study's own code is not mentioned.","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 pins a snapshot of the 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":"partial","current":0.5,"evidence":"The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.","why":"The statement points to the authors (Colavizza category 1: data available on request), not a repository record.","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":"partial","current":0.5,"evidence":"Data were collected for 214 patients with ischemic stroke and 39 non-stroke controls.","why":"The extent of the data is stated in a single sentence of running prose, but no itemised inventory of files or variables is provided. [majority verdict 'partial' (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":"No access-level label is applied to the data; the data availability statement does not use terms like 'open access' or 'publicly available'. [majority verdict 'no' (4/5 passes agreed)]","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":"This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board and was performed in accordance with STROBE criteria.","why":"STROBE is a manuscript reporting guideline (EQUATOR registry), not a data or metadata standard.","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":"partial","current":0.5,"evidence":"The MoCA was administered by trained clinic personnel who were blinded to the patient’s modified Rankin Scale score during the clinic visit.","why":"The data production method is described in generic terms without naming a specific instrument or kit version. [majority verdict 'partial' (3/5 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":"TABLE 1 | Baseline demographic, clinical, and radiographic characteristics (N = 253).","why":"Variable definitions are provided inside the article (Table 1), not in a separate documentation object shipped with the data. [downgraded to 'no' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [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":"Any reasonable request for data sharing can be directed to the corresponding author.","why":"The gatekeeper is a natural person (the corresponding author) rather than an institutional committee. [downgraded to 'no' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [majority verdict 'no' (3/5 passes agreed)]","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":"No identifier for an external resource (e.g., another dataset, reference genome, or code) is given.","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":"No statement about when the data become available or how long they persist appears in the text. [majority verdict 'no' (4/5 passes agreed)]","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":"2026-07-20T11:25:54.569105Z","clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}