MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415355933 · doi:10.1177/19475535251390648

Future-Proofing Biobanks Is Essential for Long-Term Sustainability: Workshop Report

2025· article· en· W4415355933 on OpenAlexaff
Marianna J. Bledsoe, Marianne K. Henderson, Diane McGarvey, Peter H. Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueBiopreservation and Biobanking · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsHIV Legal Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiobankMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of future-proofing a biobank describes the need to periodically monitor the sector(s) of scientific research that the biobank is intended to support and to consider adaptation as appropriate in response to changes in the science and users' needs. Future proofing is important to maximize utilization and scientific output, minimize consumption of energy and resources on large inventories, and for sustainability of the biobank. This brief report describes a workshop on this topic that was held at the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories (ISBER), May 2025.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0120.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBiopreservation and BiobankingSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207