Biobank Awareness Changes Opinions of Adolescents and Parents on Participation and Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate barriers and facilitators of pediatric biobank participation, we studied whether increased awareness of participants about pediatric biobanking changes their opinions on biobanking practices and their willingness to participate in biobanks. Adolescents (14–18 years) in public schools and their parents were invited to participate in a survey either with or without viewing educational material about biobanking before completing the survey. Questions included willingness to donate, consenting practices and use of specimens. Surveys were administered. Nonparametric statistical tests (Mann-Whitney U ) were used to test the significance of differences in Likert scale responses between participant groups. A total of 545 participants (219 adolescent and 176 parents with prior awareness about biobanking vs. 106 adolescents and 44 parents without) completed the survey. Participants who had participated in an educational session were more willing to donate compared to participants without this session under three different conditions: a left-over sample, an extra sample at the time of a medical procedure, and an extra procedure. Adolescents without prior awareness were significantly more willing to donate compared to their parents. Parents perceived the need for reconsent more important than children, although it was less important to educated parents versus noneducated parents. Age of assent was lower in the groups with prior awareness and ongoing use of specimens without reconsent was more permissible to these participants. In conclusion, prior awareness of biobanks may facilitate pediatric biobank participation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".