1
|
Fleming TR, Wittes J, Fiuzat M, Bristow MR, Rockhold FW, Connor JT, Saville BR, Claggett B, Cavagna I, Abraham WT, Cook TD, Lindenfeld J, O'Connor C, DeMets DL. Training the Next Generation of Data Monitoring Committee Members: An Initiative of the Heart Failure Collaboratory. JACC. HEART FAILURE 2024; 12:1317-1327. [PMID: 38530701 DOI: 10.1016/j.jchf.2024.02.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2023] [Revised: 02/14/2024] [Accepted: 02/21/2024] [Indexed: 03/28/2024]
Abstract
Clinical trials are vital for assessing therapeutic interventions. The associated data monitoring committees (DMCs) safeguard patient interests and enhance trial integrity, thus promoting timely, reliable evaluations of those interventions. We face an urgent need to recruit and train new DMC members. The HFC (Heart Failure Collaboratory), a multidisciplinary public-private consortium of academics, trialists, patients, industry representatives, and government agencies, is working to improve the clinical trial ecosystem. The HFC aims to improve clinical trial efficiency and quality by standardizing concepts, and to help meet the demand for experienced individuals on DMCs by creating a standardized approach to training new members. This paper discusses the HFC's training workshop, and an apprenticeship model for new DMC members. It describes opportunities and challenges DMCs face, along with common myths and best practices learned through previous experiences, with an emphasis on data confidentiality and need for quality independent statistical reporting groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas R Fleming
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | | | - Mona Fiuzat
- Division of Cardiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
| | - Michael R Bristow
- Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - Frank W Rockhold
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Jason T Connor
- ConfluenceStat LLC, Cooper City, Florida, USA; University of Central Florida College of Medicine, Orlando, Florida, USA
| | - Benjamin R Saville
- Adaptix Trials, LLC, Austin, Texas, USA; Vanderbilt University Department of Biostatistics (adjoint faculty), Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Brian Claggett
- Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | | | - William T Abraham
- Division of Cardiovascular Medicine and the Davis Heart and Lung Research Institute, The Ohio State University College of Medicine/Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Thomas D Cook
- Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - JoAnn Lindenfeld
- Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | | | - David L DeMets
- Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
DeMets DL, Zarin DA, Rockhold F, Ellenberg SS, Fleming T, Wittes J. Bringing data monitoring committee charters into the sunlight. Clin Trials 2023; 20:447-451. [PMID: 37231737 DOI: 10.1177/17407745231169499] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/27/2023]
Abstract
Clinical trials investigating novel or high risk interventions, or studying vulnerable participants, often use a data monitoring committee to oversee the progress of the trial. The data monitoring committee serves both an ethical and a scientific function, by protecting the interests of trial participants while ensuring the integrity of the trial results. A data monitoring committee charter, which typically describes the procedures by which data monitoring committees operate, contains details about the data monitoring committee's organizational structure, membership, meeting frequency, sequential monitoring guidelines, and the overall contents of data monitoring committee reports for interim review. These charters, however, are generally not reviewed by outside entities and are rarely publicly available. The result is that a key component of trial oversight remains in the dark. We recommend that ClinicalTrials.gov modify its system to allow uploading of data monitoring committee charters, as is already possible for other important study documents and that clinical trialists take advantage of this opportunity to voluntarily upload the data monitoring committee charter for trials that have one. The resulting cache of publicly available data monitoring committee charters should provide important insights for those interested in a particular trial, as well as for meta-researchers who wish to understand and potentially improve how this important component of trial oversight is actually being applied.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Deborah A Zarin
- The MRCT Center of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Frank Rockhold
- Duke Clinical Research Institute/Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Wittes J, Fleming T, DeMets D, Ellenberg S, Gerstein H, Pfeffer M, Rockhold F, Yusuf S, Hennekens C. The Data Monitoring Committee: A Collective or a Collection? Ther Innov Regul Sci 2023; 57:653-655. [PMID: 37069466 DOI: 10.1007/s43441-023-00520-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2023] [Accepted: 03/30/2023] [Indexed: 04/19/2023]
Abstract
In this commentary, we urge that a Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) should operate as a collective, that is, as a unitary whole. In so doing, its recommendations should emerge through a consensus development process, not through a vote of the members. The summary notes of its closed session, that is, its minutes, should report the recommendations of the DMC and, if necessary, the justification for those recommendations; it should not attribute opinions to individual members. Importantly, the proceedings of the DMC meetings should not be electronically recorded.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - David DeMets
- University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | | | - Hertzel Gerstein
- Population Health Research Institute and Department of Medicine, McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Marc Pfeffer
- Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Frank Rockhold
- Duke University Medical Center and The Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Salim Yusuf
- Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
Currently, too many Data Monitoring Committee Reports for interim review of trial progress are quite inadequate for Data Monitoring Committees to make informed decisions about risks and benefits. Immediate serious improvement is necessary for Data Monitoring Committees to meet their ethical, clinical, and scientific responsibility to trial participants, investigators, sponsors, and participating institutions. To achieve this critical goal, all parties involved in the Data Monitoring Committee process including sponsors, investigators, Data Monitoring Committee members, and the independent statistical reporting group need to have a better understanding of the structure, function, and needs of a Data Monitoring Committee and the content of a Data Monitoring Committee Report. Training modules through the Society for Clinical Trials are now available on their website to facilitate this.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Janet Wittes
- WCG Acquires Statistics Collaborative, Washington, DC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Fischer T. Das Data Monitoring Committee – State of the Art und Perspektiven für die Zukunft. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2020; 63:1511-1518. [PMID: 32897407 PMCID: PMC7477738 DOI: 10.1007/s00103-020-03212-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2020] [Accepted: 08/10/2020] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund
Die klassische randomisierte und kontrollierte klinische Prüfung steht mit komplexen Studiendesigns und Disease-Interception-Konzepten vor neuen Herausforderungen. Dabei können Data Monitoring Committees (Datenüberwachungskomitees [DMCs]) eine zentrale Funktion übernehmen, wenn eine fachgerechte Integration in den methodischen Ablauf der klinischen Prüfungen erfolgt. Vor diesem Hintergrund haben die zuständige Bundesoberbehörde und die zuständige Ethikkommission im impliziten/expliziten Genehmigungsverfahren zu überprüfen, ob eine substanzielle Charta die Arbeitsweise des unabhängigen Gremiums abbildet.
Ziel
Es wurde der Frage nachgegangen, mit welchen Häufigkeiten und Gegebenheiten DMCs in klinischen Prüfungen eingesetzt werden.
Methode
Die Datenbank des Bundesinstituts für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte (BfArM) bildet die Grundlage für eine Datenanalyse hinsichtlich Häufigkeiten der Implementierung von Data Monitoring Committees unter verschiedenen Kriterien über einen Beobachtungszeitraum von mehr als 15 Jahren.
Ergebnisse
Bei insgesamt 14.135 klinischen Prüfungen mit Arzneimitteln wurde 4152 DMCs eingesetzt. Das unabhängige Expertengremium wurde überwiegend von kommerziellen Sponsoren in der Phase III der klinischen Entwicklung integriert. Die Ethikkommissionen waren mit unterschiedlichen absoluten Häufigkeiten eingebunden.
Diskussion
Die Sponsoren zeigen eine zunehmende Bereitschaft, DMCs in die methodische Durchführung von klinischen Prüfungen, insbesondere bei neuartigen Studiendesigns, zu integrieren. DMCs können eine wichtige wissenschaftliche Unterstützung sein, um die Implikationen des Coronavirus SARS-CoV‑2 auf klinische Prüfungen zu beurteilen.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Fischer
- Fachgebiet Klinische Prüfung/Klinik, Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte, Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175, Bonn, Deutschland.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Mütze T, Friede T. Data monitoring committees for clinical trials evaluating treatments of COVID-19. Contemp Clin Trials 2020; 98:106154. [PMID: 32961361 PMCID: PMC7833551 DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2020.106154] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2020] [Accepted: 09/15/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
The first cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were reported in December 2019 and the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 was declared a pandemic in March 2020 by the World Health Organization. This sparked a plethora of investigations into diagnostics and vaccination for SARS-CoV-2, as well as treatments for COVID-19. Since COVID-19 is a severe disease associated with a high mortality, clinical trials in this disease should be monitored by a data monitoring committee (DMC), also known as data safety monitoring board (DSMB). DMCs in this indication face a number of challenges including fast recruitment requiring an unusually high frequency of safety reviews, more frequent use of complex designs and virtually no prior experience with the disease. In this paper, we provide a perspective on the work of DMCs for clinical trials of treatments for COVID-19. More specifically, we discuss organizational aspects of setting up and running DMCs for COVID-19 trials, in particular for trials with more complex designs such as platform trials or adaptive designs. Furthermore, statistical aspects of monitoring clinical trials of treatments for COVID-19 are considered. Some recommendations are made regarding the presentation of the data, stopping rules for safety monitoring and the use of external data. The proposed stopping boundaries are assessed in a simulation study motivated by clinical trials in COVID-19.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tobias Mütze
- Statistical Methodology, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Tim Friede
- Department of Medical Statistics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Thomas SM, Jung K, Sun H, Psioda MA, Quibrera PM, Strakowski SM. Enhancing clarity of clinical trial safety reports for data monitoring committees. J Biopharm Stat 2020; 30:1147-1161. [PMID: 32897808 DOI: 10.1080/10543406.2020.1815034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
A Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) evaluates patient safety in a clinical trial of an investigational intervention through periodic review of adverse events (AEs) and clinical safety assessments. Our aim was to construct DMC report displays to enhance the DMC safety review through use of graphics and clear identification and adjustment for missing data caused by early discontinuations and ongoing study participation. Suggested displays include a study snapshot graph, enhanced adverse event incidence tables including the incidence density and plotted incidence proportions, line graphs in place of by-patient listings, and trend plots in place of tables for continuous assessments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sonia M Thomas
- Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Kwanhye Jung
- Collaborative Studies Coordinating Center, Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Hengrui Sun
- Division of Biometrics IV, Office of Biostatistics, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA
| | - Matthew A Psioda
- Collaborative Studies Coordinating Center, Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Pedro Miguel Quibrera
- Collaborative Studies Coordinating Center, Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Stephen M Strakowski
- Department of Psychiatry, Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Evans SR, Bigelow R, Chuang-Stein C, Ellenberg SS, Gallo P, He W, Jiang Q, Rockhold F. Presenting Risks and Benefits: Helping the Data Monitoring Committee Do Its Job. Ann Intern Med 2020; 172:119-125. [PMID: 31739312 DOI: 10.7326/m19-1491] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Data monitoring committees (DMCs), or data and safety monitoring boards, protect clinical trial participants by conducting benefit-risk assessments during the course of a clinical trial. These evaluations may be improved by broader access to data and more effective analyses and presentation. Data monitoring committees should have access to all data, including efficacy data, at each interim review. The DMC reports should include graphical presentations that summarize benefits and harms in efficient ways. Benefit-risk assessments should include summaries that are consistent with the intention-to-treat principle and have a pragmatic focus. This article provides examples of graphical summaries that integrate benefits and harms, and proposes that such summaries become standard in DMC reports.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Scott R Evans
- George Washington University, Rockville, Maryland (S.R.E.)
| | - Robert Bigelow
- Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina (R.B.)
| | | | | | - Paul Gallo
- Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, New Jersey (P.G.)
| | - Weili He
- AbbVie, North Chicago, Illinois (W.H.)
| | - Qi Jiang
- Seattle Genetics, Bothell, Washington (Q.J.)
| | - Frank Rockhold
- Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina (F.R.)
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Lane JA, Gamble C, Cragg WJ, Tembo D, Sydes MR. A third trial oversight committee: Functions, benefits and issues. Clin Trials 2019; 17:106-112. [PMID: 31665920 PMCID: PMC7433693 DOI: 10.1177/1740774519881619] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/03/2022]
Abstract
Background/aims: Clinical trial oversight is central to the safety of participants and production of robust data. The United Kingdom Medical Research Council originally set out an oversight structure comprising three committees in 1998. The first committee, led by the trial team, is hands-on with trial conduct/operations (‘Trial Management Group’) and essential. The second committee (Data Monitoring Committee), usually completely independent of the trial, reviews accumulating trial evidence and is used by most later phase trials. The Independent Data Monitoring Committee makes recommendations to the third oversight committee. The third committee, (‘Trial Steering Committee’), facilitates in-depth interactions of independent and non-independent trial members and gives broader oversight (blinded to comparative analysis). We investigated the roles and functioning of the third oversight committee with multiple research methods. We reflect upon these findings to standardise the committee’s remit and operation and to potentially increase its usage. Methods: We utilised findings from our recent published suite of research on the third oversight committee to inform guideline revision. In brief, we conducted a survey of 38 United Kingdom–registered Clinical Trials Units, reviewed a cohort of 264 published trials, observed 8 third oversight committee meetings and interviewed 52 trialists. We convened an expert panel to discuss third oversight committees. Subsequently, we interviewed nine patient/lay third committee members and eight committee Chairs. Results: In the survey, most Clinical Trials Units required a third committee for all their trials (27/38, 71%) with independent members (ranging from 1 to 6). In the survey and interviews, the independence of the third committee was valued to make unbiased consideration of Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommendations and to advise on trial progress, protocol changes and recruitment issues in conjunction with the trial leadership. The third committee also advised funders and sponsors about trial continuation and represented patients and the public by including lay members. Of the cohort of 264 published trials, 144 reported a ‘steering’ committee (55%), but the independence of these members was not described so these may have been internal Trial Management Groups. Around two thirds of papers (60%) reported having an Independent Data Monitoring Committee and 26.9% neither a steering nor an Independent Data Monitoring Committee. However, before revising the third committee charter (Terms of Reference), greater standardisation is needed around defining member independence, composition, primacy of decision-making, interactions with other committees and the lifespan. Conclusion: A third oversight committee has benefits for trial oversight and conduct, and a revised charter will facilitate greater standardisation and wider adoption.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Athene Lane
- Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, Bristol Trials Centre, Bristol University, Bristol, UK.,MRC ConDucT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Medical School, Bristol University, Bristol, UK
| | - Carrol Gamble
- Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.,MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - William J Cragg
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London (UCL), London, UK.,MRC London Hub for Trials Methodology Research, London, UK.,Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Doreen Tembo
- National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Southampton, UK
| | - Matthew R Sydes
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London (UCL), London, UK.,MRC London Hub for Trials Methodology Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Tannock LR, Barton-Baxter M, Stoops WW. Creation of an institutional semi-independent data monitoring committee. Clin Trials 2019; 16:523-530. [PMID: 31257918 DOI: 10.1177/1740774519859876] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A major goal of the National Institutes of Health's Clinical and Translational Science Award program is to facilitate clinical research and enhance the transition of basic to clinical research. As such, a number of Clinical and Translational Science Award centers have developed services to facilitate the conduct of clinical research, including support with fulfilling regulatory requirements. METHODS The University of Kentucky sought to establish an institutional semi-independent monitoring committee to provide oversight for clinical research studies per National Institutes of Health requirements and recommendations. Our semi-independent monitoring committee was initiated in 2010. RESULTS Since the inception of our semi-independent monitoring committee we have restructured its operations and protocols to improve efficiency. This article discusses our experiences with semi-independent monitoring committee creation and growth. CONCLUSION This article summarizes our experience in creating and maturing an institutional data monitoring committee.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa R Tannock
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.,Barnstable Brown Diabetes Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.,Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Marietta Barton-Baxter
- Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - William W Stoops
- Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.,Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Phillips PPJ, Mitnick CD, Neaton JD, Nahid P, Lienhardt C, Nunn AJ. Keeping phase III tuberculosis trials relevant: Adapting to a rapidly changing landscape. PLoS Med 2019; 16:e1002767. [PMID: 30901331 PMCID: PMC6430373 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002767] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
In a Collection Review, Patrick Phillips and colleagues discuss developments in clinical trial design for the evaluation of TB therapeutics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick P. J. Phillips
- School of Medicine, UCSF Center for TB, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| | - Carole D. Mitnick
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - James D. Neaton
- School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America
| | - Payam Nahid
- School of Medicine, UCSF Center for TB, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | - Christian Lienhardt
- Unité Mixte Internationale TransVIHMI (UMI 233 IRD, U1175 INSERM, Université de Montpellier), Institut de Recherche pour le Développement Montpellier, Montpellier, France
| | - Andrew J. Nunn
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Abstract
With the initiation in the late 1960s of the data and safety monitoring board or equivalently the data monitoring committee in randomized clinical trials came the need for interim statistical reports for these committees to review for study conduct and early evidence of harm or overwhelming evidence of benefit, perhaps leading to early trial termination. Initially, the statistical team was part of the data coordinating center for the trial. Later, starting in the early 1990s in many industry-sponsored trials, this statistical unit was separated organizationally from the team that collected and managed the data. This unit, often referred to as the statistical data analysis center, prepares reports for the data monitoring committee, which cover study conduct, data quality and completeness, primary and secondary outcomes, and safety measures by study arm in an unblinded fashion. The role of the statistical data analysis center is critical to any well-functioning data monitoring committee. With the proliferation of data monitoring committees has grown the need for many more well-trained and experienced statistical data analysis centers. In my experience, some such units perform their tasks extremely well but many do not. There is a tremendous need and opportunity to provide training for statistical data analysis centers, and what sponsors and data monitoring committees should expect from statistical data analysis centers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David DeMets
- Department of Biostatistics & Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| |
Collapse
|