ArticleJAMA oncology2019
Biospecimens, Research Consent, and Distinguishing Cell Line Research.
Article in JAMA oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Liminal Bioethics for Liminal Statuses: A New Method for Analysing Novel Biological Entities.Bioethics · 2026Article
- Genetic Insights into the Economic Toll of Cell Line Misidentification: A Comprehensive Review.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- "Your Tumour Can Save Lives": Re-examining Singapore's Consent Procedures for the Use of De-identified Bio-specimens in Research.Asian bioethics review · 2025Article
- Regulations and Norms for Reuse of Residual Clinical Biospecimens and Health Data.Western journal of nursing research · 2022Review
- What Can We Learn About Drug Safety and Other Effects in the Era of Electronic Health Records and Big Data That We Would Not Be Able to Learn From Classic Epidemiology?The Journal of surgical research · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Newly revised regulations for human research affecting translational oncology will become effective in January 2019. A substantial component of the debate leading to this revision was how to regulate biospecimen research; specifically, whether all biospecimens should be considered inherently "identifiable," thereby necessitating informed consent for use in research. The famous cases seminal to this discussion involve cancer cell lines, but the unique features of this kind of biospecimen research were largely missing from the regulatory deliberation. However, special aspects of cell line research-at the stages of procurement, generation, evolution, and sharing-alter how society should balance participant interests against the goals of research. Recommendations are offered to cancer researchers and policymakers going forward to enable ethically appropriate regulation of biospecimen research across its diverse spectrum.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.