As neuroscience projects increase in scale and cross international borders, different ethical principles, national and international laws, regulations, and policies for data sharing must be considered. These concerns are part of what is collectively called data governance. Whereas neuroscience data transcends borders, data governance is typically constrained within geopolitical boundaries. An international data governance framework and accompanying infrastructure can assist investigators, institutions, data repositories, and funders, with navigating disparate policies. Here, we propose principles and operational considerations for how data governance in neuroscience can be navigated at an international scale, and highlight gaps, challenges, and opportunities in a global brain data ecosystem. We consider how to approach data governance in a way that balances data protection requirements and the need for open science so as to promote international collaboration, through federated constructs such as the International Brain Initiative (IBI).

Life science researchers use computational models to articulate and test hypotheses about the behavior of biological systems. Semantic annotation is a critical component for enhancing the interoperability and reusability of such models as well as for the integration of the data needed for model parameterization and validation. Encoded as machine-readable links to knowledge resource terms, semantic annotations describe the computational or biological meaning of what models and data represent. These annotations help researchers find and repurpose models, accelerate model composition and enable knowledge integration across model repositories and experimental data stores. However, realizing the potential benefits of semantic annotation requires the development of model annotation standards that adhere to a community-based annotation protocol. Without such standards, tool developers must account for a variety of annotation formats and approaches, a situation that can become prohibitively cumbersome and which can defeat the purpose of linking model elements to controlled knowledge resource terms. Currently, no consensus protocol for semantic annotation exists among the larger biological modeling community. Here, we report on the landscape of current annotation practices among the COmputational Modeling in BIology NEtwork community and provide a set of recommendations for building a consensus approach to semantic annotation.

Modeling in neuroscience occurs at the intersection of different points of view and approaches. Typically, hypothesis-driven modeling brings a question into focus so that a model is constructed to investigate a specific hypothesis about how the system works or why certain phenomena are observed. Data-driven modeling, on the other hand, follows a more unbiased approach, with model construction informed by the computationally intensive use of data. At the same time, researchers employ models at different biological scales and at different levels of abstraction. Combining these models while validating them against experimental data increases understanding of the multiscale brain. However, a lack of interoperability, transparency, and reusability of both models and the workflows used to construct them creates barriers for the integration of models representing different biological scales and built using different modeling philosophies. We argue that the same imperatives that drive resources and policy for data – such as the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles – also support the integration of different modeling approaches. The FAIR principles require that data be shared in formats that are Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. Applying these principles to models and modeling workflows, as well as the data used to constrain and validate them, would allow researchers to find, reuse, question, validate, and extend published models, regardless of whether they are implemented phenomenologically or mechanistically, as a few equations or as a multiscale, hierarchical system. To illustrate these ideas, we use a classical synaptic plasticity model, the Bienenstock–Cooper–Munro rule, as an example due to its long history, different levels of abstraction, and implementation at many scales.

We review and synthesize key findings and limitations of mathematical models for prostate cancer, both from theoretical work and data-validated approaches, especially concerning clinical applications. Our focus is on models of prostate cancer dynamics under treatment, particularly with a view toward optimizing hormone-based treatment schedules and estimating the onset of treatment resistance under various assumptions. Population models suggest that intermittent or adaptive therapy is more beneficial to delay cancer relapse as compared to the standard continuous therapy if treatment resistance comes at a competitive cost for cancer cells. Another consensus among existing work is that the standard biomarker for cancer growth, prostate-specific antigen, may not always correlate well with cancer progression. Instead, its doubling rate appears to be a better indicator of tumor growth. Much of the existing work utilizes simple ordinary differential equations due to difficulty in collecting spatial data and due to the early success of using prostate-specific antigen in mathematical modeling. However, a shift toward more complex and realistic models is taking place, which leaves many of the theoretical and mathematical questions unexplored. Furthermore, as adaptive therapy displays better potential than existing treatment protocols, an increasing number of studies incorporate this treatment into modeling efforts. Although existing modeling work has explored and yielded useful insights on the treatment of prostate cancer, the road to clinical application is still elusive. Among the pertinent issues needed to be addressed to bridge the gap from modeling work to clinical application are (1) real-time data validation and model identification, (2) sensitivity analysis and uncertainty quantification for model prediction, and (3) optimal treatment/schedule while considering drug properties, interactions, and toxicity. To address these issues, we suggest in-depth studies on various aspects of the parameters in dynamical models such as the evolution of parameters over time. We hope this review will assist future attempts at studying prostate cancer.