ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2019
Managing "incidental findings" in biobank research: Recommendations of the Taiwan biobank.
Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient and IRB perspectives on biobank consent models: implications for international policy from Taiwan.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- When genomics companies act as biobanks: governance challenges in an era of genomic assetization.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- The correlation between patient health questionnaire-4 scores and major depressive disorder: a population-based study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Integrating population-based biobanks: Catalyst for advances in precision health.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Article
- AI-enhanced integration of genetic and medical imaging data for risk assessment of Type 2 diabetes.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Biobanking as a Tool for Genomic Research: From Allele Frequencies to Cross-Ancestry Association Studies.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Precision health in Taiwan: A data-driven diagnostic platform for the future of disease prevention.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Review
- The Impact of the Synergistic Effect of Temperature and Air Pollutants on Chronic Lung Diseases in Subtropical Taiwan.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Stakeholder perspectives on the ethico-legal dimensions of biobanking in South Africa.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- The Andalusian Registry of Donors for Biomedical Research: Five Years of History.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2021Article
- Transformation of the Taiwan Biobank 3.0: vertical and horizontal integration.Journal of translational medicine · 2020Article
- Informed Consent in the Newly Established Biobank.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this article, incidental findings (IF) refer to unforeseen findings made possible through biobanking research and advances in medical diagnostic technologies that raise issues regarding the obligation and/or responsibility of biobank-users and biobanks to return clinically significant information to participants. The World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Taipei (2016) highlights the possibility of encountering IF and requires that research on biospecimens address biobank feedback policies in their informed consent process, leaving open the possibility that the policy may be "no return". As clinicians and researchers begin to use these "resources", the possibility of finding clinically significant IF is becoming a reality. DISCUSSION: In line with the WMA's Declaration of Taipei, a pragmatic approach is needed to deal with the issue of returning IF in biobank governance. Indeed, the impacts and concerns associated with the return of IF differ across different stakeholder groups and jurisdictions. Therefore, the framework governing IF return needs to be custom-built, taking into account the nature of each research project and the unique features of biobanks. To this end, in addition to facilitating biobank transparency, establishing an endurable and horizontal connection among biobanks and clinical institutions under a public health system will improve efficiency and effectiveness. Hence, subject to contemporary Taiwanese ethical and/or legal regulations, this article argues for the establishment of an updated framework for imaging-related and genetic-related IF return within the Taiwan Biobank (TWB), mainly based on a limited obligation to disclose life-threatening information revealed by imaging, but not genetic, information. SUMMARY: After discussing some of the ethical, legal and social issues encountered by the TWB and accounting for the experiences of other international biobanks, we propose a systematic framework for returning IF, mainly on a "limited obligation" basis, which offers better and more comprehensive protection for biobank-participants' rights and health.
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.