CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 111

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Evolution of a Large Biobank at Mass General Brigham

Boutin, Natalie T., Schecter, Samantha B., Perez, Emma F., Tchamitchian, Natasha S., Cerretani, Xander R., Gainer, Vivian S., Lebo, Matthew S., Mahanta, Lisa M., Karlson, Elizabeth W., Smoller, Jordan W.·2022·Journal of Personalized Medicine
DOI 10.3390/jpm12081323PMC PMC9410531
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Mass General Brigham Biobank (formerly Partners HealthCare Biobank) is a large repository of biospecimens and data linked to extensive electronic health record data and survey data. Its objective is to support and enable translational research focused on genomic, environmental, biomarker and family history associations with disease phenotypes. The Biobank has enrolled more than 135,000 participants, generated genomic data on more than 65,000 of its participants, distributed approximately 153,000 biospecimens, and served close to 450 institutional studies with biospecimens or data. Although the Biobank has been successful, based on some measures of output, this has required substantial institutional investment. In addition, several challenges are ongoing, including: (1) developing a sustainable cost model that doesn’t rely as heavily on institutional funding; (2) integrating Biobank operations into clinical workflows; and (3) building a research resource that is diverse and promotes equity in research. Here, we describe the evolution of the Biobank and highlight key lessons learned that may inform other efforts to build biobanking efforts in health system contexts.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/jpm12081323

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Karlson, E.W., Boutin, N.T., Hoffnagle, A.G., and Allen, N.L. (2016). Building the Partners HealthCare Biobank at Partners Personalized Medicine: Informed Consent, Return of Research Results, Recruitment Lessons and Operational Considerations. J. Pers. Med., 6. · DOI
  2. Schmanski, 2021, Research Participant Understanding and Engagement in an Institutional, Self-Consent Biobank Model, J. Genet. Couns., 30, 257, 10.1002/jgc4.1316 · DOI
  3. Beskow, L.M., Friedman, J.Y., Hardy, N.C., Lin, L., and Weinfurt, K.P. (2010). Developing a Simplified Consent Form for Biobanking. PLoS ONE, 5. · DOI
  4. Green, 2013, ACMG Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing, Genet. Med., 15, 565, 10.1038/gim.2013.73 · DOI
  5. Smith, 2013, Biobanking: The Melding of Research with Clinical Care, Curr. Genet. Med. Rep., 1, 122, 10.1007/s40142-013-0014-6 · DOI
  6. McDonald, 2012, Fee-for-Service as a Business Model of Growing Importance: The Academic Biobank Experience, Biopreserv. Biobank., 10, 421, 10.1089/bio.2012.0017 · DOI
  7. Merino, 2020, Assessing and Measuring Financial Sustainability Model of the Spanish HIV HGM BioBank, J. Transl. Med., 18, 6, 10.1186/s12967-019-02187-w · DOI
  8. Ciaburri, 2017, Business Planning in Biobanking: How to Implement a Tool for Sustainability, Biopreserv. Biobank., 15, 46, 10.1089/bio.2016.0045 · DOI
  9. Odeh, 2015, The Biobank Economic Modeling Tool (BEMT): Online Financial Planning to Facilitate Biobank Sustainability, Biopreserv. Biobank., 13, 421, 10.1089/bio.2015.0089 · DOI
  10. Dewey, 2016, Distribution and Clinical Impact of Functional Variants in 50,726 Whole-Exome Sequences from the DiscovEHR Study, Science, 354, aaf6814, 10.1126/science.aaf6814 · DOI
  11. Thorogood, 2019, Return of Individual Genomic Research Results: Are Laws and Policies Keeping Step?, Eur. J. Hum. Genet., 27, 535, 10.1038/s41431-018-0311-3 · DOI
  12. Downey, A.S., Busta, E.R., Mancher, M., and Botkin, J.R. (2018). Committee on the Return of Individual-Specific Research Results Generated in Research Laboratories Returning Individual Research Results to Participants: Guidance for a New Research Paradigm, National Academies Press.
  13. Miller, 2021, ACMG SF v3.0 List for Reporting of Secondary Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing: A Policy Statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG), Genet. Med., 23, 1381, 10.1038/s41436-021-01172-3 · DOI
  14. Shah, 2021, Returning Actionable Genomic Results in a Research Biobank: Analytic Validity, Clinical Implementation, and Resource Utilization, Am. J. Hum. Genet., 108, 2224, 10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.10.005 · DOI
  15. Rush, 2020, Improving Academic Biobank Value and Sustainability Through an Outputs Focus, Value Health, 23, 1072, 10.1016/j.jval.2020.05.010 · DOI
  16. Aragam, 2020, Limitations of Contemporary Guidelines for Managing Patients at High Genetic Risk of Coronary Artery Disease, J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 75, 2769, 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.027 · DOI
  17. Plym, 2021, Evaluation of a Multiethnic Polygenic Risk Score Model for Prostate Cancer, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 114, 771, 10.1093/jnci/djab058 · DOI
  18. Kachroo, 2022, Metabolomic Profiling Reveals Extensive Adrenal Suppression Due to Inhaled Corticosteroid Therapy in Asthma, Nat. Med., 28, 814, 10.1038/s41591-022-01714-5 · DOI
  19. Hindorff, 2018, Prioritizing Diversity in Human Genomics Research, Nat. Rev. Genet., 19, 175, 10.1038/nrg.2017.89 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Denny, 2021, Precision Medicine in 2030—Seven Ways to Transform Healthcare, Cell, 184, 1415, 10.1016/j.cell.2021.01.015 · DOI
  21. Bibbins-Domingo, K., and Helman, A. (2022). Medicine Improving Representation in Clinical Trials and Research: Building Research Equity for Women and Underrepresented Groups, The National Academies Press. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 111

Metadata

Authors
Boutin, N. T., Schecter, S. B., Perez, E. F., Tchamitchian, N. S., Cerretani, X. R., Gainer, V. S., Lebo, M. S., Mahanta, L. M., Karlson, E. W., & Smoller, J. W.
Venue
Journal of Personalized Medicine
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-08-17
Volume
12
Issue
8
Pages
1323
ISSN
2075-4426
DOI
10.3390/jpm12081323
PMC
PMC9410531
Cited by
111
References
1
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
IBM (NIAMS P30 AR070253, NHGRI U01 HG008685, 5UM1HG008895)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review