As alluded above, if on one hand there is ample evidence showing that the up regulation of glycolytic enzymes is consensual, complementary data obtained from functional approaches, i.e. measuring the activities of the intermediates of glycolysis is still relatively scarce.
Validity was determined by peer debriefing in which the entire research team reviewed, validated, and verified all interpretations and conclusions of the data (consensual validity).
Moreover, participants' responses regarding the acceptability of non-consensual uses of data vary considerably depending on clarifications regarding safeguards [ 21].
In addition, participants also seemed to be aware of the trade-off between non-consensual uses of data and benefits arising from research.
Research participants in another study were also more positively disposed to non-consensual use of data when they better understood the impact of stringent consent requirements [ 29].
Overall, however, findings seem to support the non-consensual use of data more so than the requirement for consent [ 8– 13, 13, 21].
Finally, in contrast to the assumption that most will prefer to opt in irrespective of identifiability, respondents supported the non-consensual use of data and appeared to make a distinction between the use of identifiable and non-identifiable data.
PSD enrichments from two biological samples were combined in a statistical analysis, which integrates data from consensual and non-consensual peptide identifications in a Bayesian fashion (48).
The regional networking has created standardized definitions across the PAROS network by adopting a consensual common taxonomy and data collection methodology.
In contrast, in the current study, we used biological replicates, common Affymetrix platform and consensual statistical methods of data analysis [33].
