ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2020
Bridging the Collaboration Gap: Real-time Identification of Clinical Specimens for Biomedical Research.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Connecting biospecimens and data: a scoping review-informed conceptual framework for digital infrastructure in biobanking and genomic research in low- and middle-income countries.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Creation of Standardized Common Data Elements for Diagnostic Tests in Infectious Disease Studies: Semantic and Syntactic Mapping.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Applications of Digital Microscopy and Densely Connected Convolutional Neural Networks for Automated Quantification of Babesia-Infected Erythrocytes.Clinical chemistry · 2021Article
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
introductionBiomedical and translational research often relies on the evaluation of patients or specimens that meet specific clinical or laboratory criteria. The typical approach used to identify biospecimens is a manual, retrospective process that exists outside the clinical workflow. This often makes biospecimen collection cost prohibitive and prevents the collection of analytes with short stability times. Emerging data architectures offer novel approaches to enhance specimen-identification practices. To this end, we present a new tool that can be deployed in a real-time environment to automate the identification and notification of available biospecimens for biomedical research.
methodsReal-time clinical and laboratory data from Cloverleaf (Infor, NY, NY) were acquired within our computational health platform, which is built on open-source applications. Study-specific filters were developed in NiFi (Apache Software Foundation, Wakefield, MA, USA) to identify the study-appropriate specimens in real time. Specimen metadata were stored in Elasticsearch (Elastic N. V., Mountain View, CA, USA) for visualization and automated alerting.
resultsBetween June 2018 and December 2018, we identified 2992 unique specimens belonging to 2815 unique patients, split between two different use cases. Based on laboratory policy for specimen retention and study-specific stability requirements, secure E-mail notifications were sent to investigators to automatically notify of availability. The assessment of throughput on commodity hardware demonstrates the ability to scale to approximately 2000 results per second.
conclusionThis work demonstrates that real-world clinical data can be analyzed in real time to increase the efficiency of biospecimen identification with minimal overhead for the clinical laboratory. Future work will integrate additional data types, including the analysis of unstructured data, to enable more complex cases and biospecimen identification.
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.