ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
Quantifying the impact of biobanks and cohort studies.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. 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.
- Review
- [Artificial intelligence and cardiovascular biobanks: Shared technological promise and ethical responsibility].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026Article
- Utilization Patterns of Hospital Biobank Samples: Time to First Use and Material-Specific Demand.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Observational
- Development of biobanking infrastructure in Armenia: opportunities and challenges.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biobanks advance biomedical and clinical research by collecting and offering data and biological samples for numerous studies. However, the impact of these repositories varies greatly due to differences in their purpose, scope, governance, and data collected. Here, we computationally identified 2,663 biobanks and their textual mentions in 228,761 scientific articles, 16,210 grants, 15,469 patents, 1,769 clinical trials, and 9,468 public policy documents, helping characterize the academic communities that utilize and support them. We found a strong concentration of biobank-related research on a few diseases, including obesity, Alzheimer's disease, breast cancer, and diabetes. Moreover, collaboration, rather than citation count, shapes the community's recognition of a biobank. We show that, on average, 41.1% of articles fail to reference any of the biobank's reference papers, but 59.6% include a biobank member as a coauthor. Using a generalized linear model, we identified the key factors that contribute to the impact of a biobank, finding that an impactful biobank tends to be more open to external researchers and that quality data-especially linked medical records-as opposed to large data, correlates with a higher impact in science, innovation, and disease. The collected data and findings are accessible through an open-access web application intended to inform strategies to expand access and maximize the value of these resources.
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.