Schedule of project presentations:

1. Schedule of project presentations: WP1: NoE management C. Díaz - FIMIM WP2: Dissemination WP3: Training & mobility F. Martín - ISCIII E. Molero - IMIM WP4: Data interoperability WP5: Methods, technologies & tools V. Maojo – UPM, D. Voets - Custodix G. Potamias – FORTH, J. Oliveira - UAVR WP6: Pilot applications 6.1 - Pharmainformatics 6.2 - Genomics & microbiology 6.3 - Genomics & chronic inflammation 6.4 - Genomics & colon cancer F. Martín - ISCIII S. Boyer - AZ K. Robertson - UEDIN B. Loos - ACTA I. Bernstein – HNPCC Final achievements and future F. Sanz - IMIM

2. NoE Management Overview C. Díaz - FIMIM

3. Project status PAR Coord. & manag. Evaluation PMR D20 D22 D23 D24 D27 Final D21 Tools usage & monitoring Implementation of Action Plan, outreach D28 Implementation of Action Plan, TCs, SE, Mobility, evaluation D29 Ongoing update of SOA, gaps D25 Selected developments, INFORMA mini-pilot Ongoing update of SOA, gaps, training materials D26 Selected developments Implementation of Work plans, evaluation, integration b/w pilots D30

4. Summary of achievements in the period • Intense dissemination activities, organisation of International Symposium on Biomedical Informatics (June 2007, PRBB, Barcelona), a cross-project event (INFOBIOMED, SEMANTIC MINING, ACGT, EURESIST, LOCCANDIA, HEALTHAGENTS, @NEURIST). • Successful training activities: 2nd and 3rd Training Challenges, two Summer Schools. • Maintenance of web sites and horizontal activities (e.g. mobility). • Elaboration of new versions of SoA reports of WP4 and WP5. Deliverables D13 and D26 implemented in Wiki pages to facilitate their potential use as training materials. • Completion of a variety of generic and specialised BMI tools. • Completion of pilot applications. Completion of INFORMA mini-pilot. Scientific publications produced. • Deliverables elaborated, reviewed and submitted.

5. Management work during the period • Preparation and undertaking of 2nd Annual Review and Final Review. Internal review on December 2006. • Clustering activities with other eHealth NoEs: • Joint Summer School 2006. • Joint organisation of Symposium and Summer School 2007 (w/Semantic Mining). • Joint proposal for a Marie Curie Training Network (w/Semantic Mining). • • Contingency budget management. • Coordination of deliverable review procedures. • Promotion of joint proposals for funding, including a COST research network application. • Progress and financial reporting: • Completion of administrative and financial reporting for 2nd period. • Distribution of payments up to 93% of funding (average). • Internal reporting implemented on December 2006. • Adjustment of budgets according to contingency distribution. • Procedures for contract amendments (DOW update, change of legal organisations, 6-month extension) and other procedures (extension of “grace” period, etc.). • Observation of gender equality policies in all activities. + Ongoing management activities

6. Contingency budget management • Contingency primarily used for general expenses • Final contingency funds distribution based on: • - Added value for the project towards the “proof of concept” of BMI • - Added value for the project in terms of tangible results offered • - Cost of opportunity (i.e. the cost of not doing something else) • - Requests proportionate to resources needed

7. Contingency budget management

8. Review of deliverables • Formal peer-review procedure • Partners have been assigned to deliverables: • D25: FORTH, UAVR, HHUD, IMIM • D26: UPM, ISCIII, CUSTODIX, UAVR, HHUD, IMIM, FORTH (int) • D28: HNPCC, ACTA, INFORMA, HHUD, FIMIM • D29: UEDIN, AZ, HHUD, FIMIM • D30: FUNEN, ERASMUS, ULEICS, HHUD, IMIM

9. Responsibility Assignment Matrix period “Diffusion”: 3.8 main partners and 9.2 total partners per task “Dispersion”: 2.1 main contributions and 5.2 total contributions per partner

10. Project management: effort per WP

11. Project management: effort per partner

12. Budget consumption and payments • Overall budget consumption: • 2004: 1.56 MEUR = 27% of total project costs (24% of total effort). • 2005: 2.02 MEUR = 35% of total project costs (36% of total effort). • 2006-07: 2.23 MEUR = 38% of total project costs (40% of total effort). • TOTAL: 5.81 MEUR = 120% of total funding (119% of planned effort). • Approx. budget consumption distribution per category: • YEAR 1YEAR 2YEAR 3 • Personnel: 65% 63% 68% • Travel: 8% 8% 9% • Other costs: 6% 6% 5% • Overheads: 21% 23% 17% • Two payments made to partners: • July 2006 – 2nd cost statement payment • February 2007 – remaining funds distribution – up to 93% of funding (average)

13. Indicators of collaboration and integration • Indicators established in the DOW regarding collaborative activity and integration evaluated: • Relatively high scientific production and scientific communication (scientific events, workshops and conferences). • Very high social communication (>120 publications and dissemination activities through specialised or mass media) and number of actors (critical mass) engaged. • Important improvement of ‘integration’ indicators: workshops, reference documents, tools aimed to overcome barriers to synergy between BI and MI. • Important improvement of ‘technology transfer’ indicators: joint projects, industries. • Significant advances in creation of BMI research capacity, especially courses and training activities, junior researchers engaged. Limited development of new curricula.

14. Indicators of collaboration and integration Pre-existing collaborations New direct collaborations (e.g. pilots) • Average no. of collaborations: • - Before INFOBIOMED1.6 • Past review 4.8 • Current 5.1

15. Indicators of collaboration and integration No. of rings indicates number of direct scientific collaborations of each institution: Before INFOBIOMED

16. Indicators of collaboration and integration No. of rings indicates number of direct scientific collaborations of each institution: Current

17. Impact of INFOBIOMED • Other indicators: • PDUK: • Identified “pieces” of exploitable knowledge generated by the project: 32 • Number of  publishable results generated by the project: 20 • Number of papers published or in the process of publication: 28 • Number of joint papers published or in the process of publication: 16 • >90% of partners have explicitly expressed interest in any joint proposals for further funding. • New proposals/projects with participation of several INFOBIOMED partners: ACGT, ALERT, GEN2PHEN, CHEMBIOSPACE, RADIMAN, several national grants: ONTOMINEBASE, COMBIOMED, PROGNOCHIP, etc. • Demonstrated capability to mobilise resources and act as catalyst (e.g. symposium, joint proposals, etc.) • Innovative initiatives created thanks to a productive environment (e.g. Training Challenge)

18. Impact of INFOBIOMED • Impact study • Subjective evaluation of the impact of INFOBIOMED. Short survey implemented, n=16 • What impact has INFOBIOMED had in the way you carry out your research? (1-Negligible, 5-Huge) 3.8 • (2) What is the most significant change in the way you approach research resulting from INFOBIOMED? • (a) Shifting to a BMI focus (instead of purely MI or BI focus) (12) • (b) Better understanding of technological issues (6) • (c) Better understanding of the value of Bioinformatics (5) • (d) Better understanding of the value of Medical Informatics (4) • (e) Better understanding of clinicians (4) • (3) What is your appraisal of the durability of these changes in your approach to research? • (a) Permanent, it has changed our basic approach in a definitive way (6) • (b) Somewhat permanent, but not in all our research lines/areas (9) • (c) Temporary, we will eventually return of our "old" way of doing things when the project is finished (0) • (d) We have actually not changed our way of doing things (1) • (4) How many new scientific, long term relationships have you established thanks to INFOBIOMED? 3.6

19. Impact of INFOBIOMED Impact study (5) How many new proposals/projects have you developed jointly with one or more INFOBIOMED partners during the course of the project? 1.7 (6) In your opinion, what obstacles do still exist for the development of BMI, in your organisation and in general? (a) Lack of continuing funding to promote BI-MI exchange and BMI development (9) (b) Crossing borders across disciplines is not solved (7) (c) Not enough incentives to overcome own research niches (4) (d) Benefits of BMI are still not clear (0) (e) BMI lacks consolidation as a discipline (3) (f) Lack of awareness of governments and the general public on its potential (7) (7) For your organisation, how successful/important has INFOBIOMED been? (1- Extremely unimportant, 5-Extremely important) 3.9