Modeling the impact of digital readiness in recruiting and sustaining underrepresented groups: Data from the All of Us research program is a dataset published in Frontiers in Digital Health (2023). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 0.437, placing it in the top 42.7% of the data-sharing corpus. It has been cited 7 times, with 5 citing works in its 1-hop citation network. Its calibrated FAIR score is 6/100.
Ranks in the top 43% for downstream scientific impact
DataRank reads this dataset's downstream impact straight off the citation graph — no black box, no proprietary weighting. How is this computed?
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Full FAIR picture · advisory
The headline score is computed from the scored criteria — the fact-shaped checks (a repository, an accession, a licence) that two independent models agree on. The advisory criteria below are real FAIR guidance but rest on judgment calls that models read differently, so they inform without moving the number.
The paper does not provide any persistent identifier string (DOI, Handle, ARK, repository accession) for its own dataset.
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'
“The data analyzed in this study is subject to the following licenses/restrictions: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, and subject to approval from NIH.”
The holder named is the corresponding author (a natural person), not a repository or even a non-repository host; no institution or platform is named as holding the data.
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
No identifier for the study's own dataset appears anywhere in the paper; the paper only cites the All of Us Program as a source, not its own derived data.
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'
Advisory · not in the published score
“The data analyzed in this study is subject to the following licenses/restrictions: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, and subject to approval from NIH.”
The statement points to a person (corresponding author) and a third party (NIH) with no repository record, falling into Colavizza category 1 (data available on request).
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
“The study population included 2,897 All of Us participants who responded to questions on digital readiness (three questions, Table 3) for the time-period between June 2019 and March 2020 when they completed required actions to become an enrolled participant (Table 2).”— not found in the paper; verdict downgraded
The dataset's content and size are described in running prose; there is no itemised inventory section, table, or list of files/variables. [downgraded to 'no' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [majority verdict 'no' (3/5 passes agreed)]
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'
“The data analyzed in this study is subject to the following licenses/restrictions: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, and subject to approval from NIH.”
The only route is a discretionary request to a person with no defined followable process; such a request is not a followable route, so it scores no.
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'
Advisory · not in the published score
“The data analyzed in this study is subject to the following licenses/restrictions: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, and subject to approval from NIH.”
The paper does not apply a standard access-level label; it describes an action (request to author and NIH approval) from which the level must be inferred.
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
“Requests to access these datasets should be directed to [email protected].”
The gatekeeper is a natural person (the corresponding author) with no institutional committee named; this is a partial because a person is named but not an institutional gatekeeper.
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
“The data analyzed in this study is subject to the following licenses/restrictions: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, and subject to approval from NIH.”
The paper states availability on request but says nothing about how long the data will persist; no retention period or permanent archival claim is made.
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'
No file format token of any kind is named for the released data; the paper only mentions that analyses were conducted using R and RStudio.
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
Advisory · not in the published score
No data or metadata community standard (e.g., MIAME, Dublin Core, an OBO ontology) is named; the only standards mentioned are program-specific definitions.
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'
No identifier (accession, DOI, RRID, assembly ID) for any external resource that the data depend on appears; the paper cites references but not datasets or databases with identifiers.
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'
No licence artefact (open or otherwise) is named for the data; the text only mentions that data are subject to licenses/restrictions without specifying a licence name.
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'
“which is the freeze date for the dataset used in this study”
A date (April 28, 2022) pins the snapshot, but no version token is stated.
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'
The paper does not provide any locator (URL, DOI, repository) for the study's own code; it only mentions using R and RStudio without depositing code.
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)
“Contract 75FCMC18D0047, Task Order 75N98019F01202”
An award/grant number is given attached to a named funder (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services).
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
Advisory · not in the published score
“The analyses utilize quantitative data on adult FQHC patients who are All of Us participants; data are housed at the Data and Research Center (DRC) Program Data Repository.”— not found in the paper; verdict downgraded
Collection and processing are described in generic terms without naming specific instruments, kits, or software versions used to produce the data. [downgraded to 'no' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [majority verdict 'no' (4/5 passes agreed)]
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
“Table 1”— not found in the paper; verdict downgraded
Variable definitions and code lists are provided inside the article via tables (e.g., Table 1, Table 3, Table 4), but no documentation object is said to accompany the data deposit. [downgraded to 'no' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [majority verdict 'no' (3/5 passes agreed)]
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
Calibrated FAIR score — a parallel quality metric, independent of the DataRank citation score. See the full evaluation →
Base Score Contribution
0.312
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
0.126
From 2 citing papers with measurable signal
Ranked by each citer's contribution to N(p) — log1p(Cq) divided by its reference count — out of 5 citers.
FWCI
2.95
Citation Percentile
0.9%
Citation Trend
Fields of Study
Keywords