Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39499856›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB2025

Enabling Demonstrated Consent for Biobanking with Blockchain and Generative AI.

Caspar Barnes, Mateo Riobo Aboy, Timo Minssen, Jemima Winifred Allen, Brian D Earp, Julian Savulescu, Sebastian Porsdam Mann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Digital bioethics: exploring an emerging field.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. IsAI & society · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Caspar BarnesHarvard Medical School.
Mateo Riobo AboyUniversity of Cambridge.
Timo MinssenUniversity of Copenhagen.
Jemima Winifred AllenMonash University.
Brian D EarpUniversity of Oxford.ORCID 0000-0001-9691-2888
Julian SavulescuUniversity of Oxford.ORCID 0000-0003-1691-6403
Sebastian Porsdam MannUniversity of Copenhagen.ORCID 0000-0002-1867-2097

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Participation in research is supposed to be voluntary and informed. Yet it is difficult to ensure people are adequately informed about the potential uses of their biological materials when they donate samples for future research. We propose a novel consent framework which we call "demonstrated consent" that leverages blockchain technology and generative AI to address this problem. In a demonstrated consent model, each donated sample is associated with a unique non-fungible token (NFT) on a blockchain, which records in its metadata information about the planned and past uses of the sample in research, and is updated with each use of the sample. This information is accessible to a large language model (LLM) customized to present this information in an understandable and interactive manner. Thus, our model uses blockchain and generative AI technologies to track, make available, and explain information regarding planned and past uses of donated samples.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchBlockchainInformed ConsentHumansbiomedical researchblockchaingenerative AIInformed consentlarge language models (LLMs)research ethics

Identifiers

PMID39499856
PMCPMC12005476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.