The phrase "a central database is" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when introducing a subject or making a statement about a central database in a discussion or explanation.
Example: "A central database is essential for maintaining accurate records and ensuring data consistency across the organization."
Alternatives: "a primary database is" or "a main database is".
Personally, I believe that a central database is not the final answer, but at least the principle has been agreed by out-of-hours doctors, pharmacists and bodies like Asthma UK and Mencap, that an electronic record is better than flying by the seat of your pants.
A central database is established to store the input data of the optimization problem.
In particular, when data comes in such large quantities that local or in-house storage and processing is not an option anymore, it is not a surprise that "traditional" technology focusing around a central database is no longer apt.
Eventually gathering somewhat standardized key indicators in a central database is a pragmatic solution to generate quantitative results.
In DK and NO, recording of all diseases, i.e. the submission of the disease record to a central database, is mandatory for herds in milk recording.
Informed written consent and/or assent for collection of study information and transmission of de-identified records to a central database is also obtained by the healthcare professional in accordance with the specific requirements dictated by each site's Research Ethics Board (details below).
To accommodate multidisciplinary use of the data, a central database was developed that allows all collaborating scientists to access the data, yet protects data integrity.
It would probably adopt a proposal made by the AMA that registration in a central database be a requirement for the approval of human trials, as well as introducing new requirements to include trial results in the database.The industry disputes the need for this.
The plan to bring all patient medical records into a central database was described as the "biggest IT failure ever seen" and was scrapped after more than £10 billion ($14.9 billion) had been spent.
A central database was then simulated and trialled successfully in a table-top exercise.
In addition, a central database was built to archive all of the genetic testing data, notes, and comments throughout the review process, variant validation data by Sanger sequencing as well as the final clinical reports for future reference.
