Applying Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable Principles to Biospecimens and Biobanks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of stimulating greater sharing of data for use and reuse in health research is widely recognized. To this end, the findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) principles for data have been developed and widely accepted in the research community. Research biospecimens are a resource that leads to much of this health research data but are also a form of data. Therefore, the FAIR principles should apply to biospecimens. Nevertheless, there is a widespread problem of not sharing biospecimen resources that is clearly visible within the research arena. The impacts of this are likely to include diversion of precious research funds into compiling duplicate biospecimen cohorts, detraction from research productivity as researchers compete for and create duplicate resources, and deterrence of attempts to assess research reproducibility. This article explores some of the barriers that may limit availability of FAIR biospecimens. These barriers relate to the type of biospecimen collections and the characteristics of the custodians that influence their intention and interest in sharing. Barriers also relate to the ethical, legal, and social issues concerning collections, the research context of the collections, and cost and expertise involved in repurposing collections to enable sharing. Several solutions to increase sharing are identified. Some have recently been implemented, including enhancing biospecimen locators with tools to guide researchers and facilitating transfer of research collections to centralized biobank infrastructures at the conclusion of projects. New proposed solutions include improving search capabilities within publication databases, and introduction of evidence-based justifications for all new collections into peer-reviewed grant competition processes. It is recognized that there are both scientific factors and practical reasons that can impose limits to sharing biospecimens. However, funding availability, productivity, and progress in health research all stand to benefit from improved sharing of research biospecimen collections.
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 | 0.219 | 0.271 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.056 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".