A Survey on the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Biobanking Studies: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In biobanks, participants’ biological samples are stored for future research. The application of artificial intelligence (AI) involves the analysis of data and the prediction of any pathological outcomes. In AI, models are used to diagnose diseases as well as classify and predict disease risks. Our research analyzed AI’s role in the development of biobanks in the healthcare industry, systematically. Methods: The literature search was conducted using three digital reference databases, namely PubMed, CINAHL, and WoS. Guidelines for preferred reporting elements for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA)-2020 in conducting the systematic review were followed. The search terms included “biobanks”, “AI”, “machine learning”, and “deep learning”, as well as combinations such as “biobanks with AI”, “deep learning in the biobanking field”, and “recent advances in biobanking”. Only English-language papers were included in the study, and to assess the quality of selected works, the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) was used. The good quality range (NOS ≥ 7) is only considered for further review. Results: A literature analysis of the above entries resulted in 239 studies. Based on their relevance to the study’s goal, research characteristics, and NOS criteria, we included 18 articles for reviewing. In the last decade, biobanks and artificial intelligence have had a relatively large impact on the medical system. Interestingly, UK biobanks account for the highest percentage of high-quality works, followed by Qatar, South Korea, Singapore, Japan, and Denmark. Conclusions: Translational bioinformatics probably represent a future leader in precision medicine. AI and machine learning applications to biobanking research may contribute to the development of biobanks for the utility of health services and citizens.
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 | 0.035 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".