13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Biobanks—A Platform for Scientific and Biomedical Research

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The development of biomedical science requires the creation of biological material collections that allow for the search and discovery of biomarkers for pathological conditions, the identification of new therapeutic targets, and the validation of these findings in samples from patients and healthy people. Over the past decades, the importance and need for biobanks have increased considerably. Large national and international biorepositories have replaced small collections of biological samples. The aim of this work is to provide a basic understanding of biobanks and an overview of how biobanks have become essential structures in modern biomedical research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references109

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): maintaining and operating a public information repository.

          The National Institutes of Health have placed significant emphasis on sharing of research data to support secondary research. Investigators have been encouraged to publish their clinical and imaging data as part of fulfilling their grant obligations. Realizing it was not sufficient to merely ask investigators to publish their collection of imaging and clinical data, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) created the open source National Biomedical Image Archive software package as a mechanism for centralized hosting of cancer related imaging. NCI has contracted with Washington University in Saint Louis to create The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA)-an open-source, open-access information resource to support research, development, and educational initiatives utilizing advanced medical imaging of cancer. In its first year of operation, TCIA accumulated 23 collections (3.3 million images). Operating and maintaining a high-availability image archive is a complex challenge involving varied archive-specific resources and driven by the needs of both image submitters and image consumers. Quality archives of any type (traditional library, PubMed, refereed journals) require management and customer service. This paper describes the management tasks and user support model for TCIA.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials

            Background Obtaining informed consent is a cornerstone of biomedical research, yet participants comprehension of presented information is often low. The most effective interventions to improve understanding rates have not been identified. Purpose To systematically analyze the random controlled trials testing interventions to research informed consent process. The primary outcome of interest was quantitative rates of participant understanding; secondary outcomes were rates of information retention, satisfaction, and accrual. Interventional categories included multimedia, enhanced consent documents, extended discussions, test/feedback quizzes, and miscellaneous methods. Methods The search spanned from database inception through September 2010. It was run on Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid CINAHL, Ovid PsycInfo and Cochrane CENTRAL, ISI Web of Science and Scopus. Five reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened full abstract text to determine eligibility. We included only RCTs. 39 out of 1523 articles fulfilled review criteria (2.6%), with a total of 54 interventions. A data extraction form was created in Distiller, an online reference management system, through an iterative process. One author collected data on study design, population, demographics, intervention, and analytical technique. Results Meta-analysis was possible on 22 interventions: multimedia, enhanced form, and extended discussion categories; all 54 interventions were assessed by review. Meta-analysis of multimedia approaches was associated with a non-significant increase in understanding scores (SMD 0.30, 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.84); enhanced consent form, with significant increase (SMD 1.73, 95% CI, 0.99 to 2.47); and extended discussion, with significant increase (SMD 0.53, 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.84). By review, 31% of multimedia interventions showed significant improvement in understanding; 41% for enhanced consent form; 50% for extended discussion; 33% for test/feedback; and 29% for miscellaneous.Multiple sources of variation existed between included studies: control processes, the presence of a human proctor, real vs. simulated protocol, and assessment formats. Conclusions Enhanced consent forms and extended discussions were most effective in improving participant understanding. Interventions of all categories had no negative impact on participant satisfaction or study accrual. Identification of best practices for studies of informed consent interventions would aid future systematic comparisons.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative: an electronic health record-linked biobank for Precision Medicine research

              Purpose Geisinger Health System (GHS) provides an ideal platform for Precision Medicine. Key elements are the integrated health system, stable patient population, and electronic health record (EHR) infrastructure. In 2007 Geisinger launched MyCode®, a system-wide biobanking program to link samples and EHR data for broad research use. Methods Patient-centered input into MyCode® was obtained using participant focus groups. Participation in MyCode® is based on opt-in informed consent and allows recontact, which facilitates collection of data not in the EHR, and, since 2013, the return of clinically actionable results to participants. MyCode® leverages Geisinger’s technology and clinical infrastructure for participant tracking and sample collection. Results MyCode® has a consent rate of >85% with more than 90,000 participants currently, with ongoing enrollment of ~4,000 per month. MyCode® samples have been used to generate molecular data, including high-density genotype and exome sequence data. Genotype and EHR-derived phenotype data replicate previously reported genetic associations. Conclusion The MyCode® project has created resources that enable a new model for translational research that is faster, more flexible, and more cost effective than traditional clinical research approaches. The new model is scalable, and will increase in value as these resources grow and are adopted across multiple research platforms.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Diagnostics (Basel)
                Diagnostics (Basel)
                diagnostics
                Diagnostics
                MDPI
                2075-4418
                16 July 2020
                July 2020
                : 10
                : 7
                : 485
                Affiliations
                Biobanking Group, Branch of IBMC “Scientific and Education Center” Bolshoy Nikolovorobinsky lane, 7, 109028 Moscow, Russia; a.t.kopylov@ 123456gmail.com (A.K.); aleks.a.stepanov@ 123456gmail.com (A.S.); t.butkova@ 123456gmail.com (T.B.); anvilya@ 123456gmail.com (A.S.); farmsale@ 123456yandex.ru (A.I.); kaysheva1@ 123456gmail.com (A.K.)
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: kristina.malsagova86@ 123456gmail.com ; Tel.: +7-499-764-9878
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7199-372X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9113-9440
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5111-3863
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4472-2016
                Article
                diagnostics-10-00485
                10.3390/diagnostics10070485
                7400532
                32708805
                8cb8bbf0-7c31-47c7-901b-effbc8fb7c29
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 08 June 2020
                : 13 July 2020
                Categories
                Review

                biobank,bioethics,human samples,personalized medicine,digitization

                Comments

                Comment on this article