ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
An 8-step procedure-specific risk framework enables reproducible biosafety level assignment beyond agent-based classification.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Current biosafety frameworks that directly link Risk Group (RG) to Biosafety Level (BSL) fail to capture how much exposure varies across the procedures performed in modern biomedical laboratories operating with genetically modified organisms, viral vectors, and multi-step protocols. This article presents the Procedure-Specific Risk (PSR) framework, an 8-step operational protocol for reproducible Biosafety Level assignment in which the exposure generated by the procedure-rather than agent taxonomy-serves as the primary determinant of containment. Methods: A structured comparative analysis of ten national and international biosafety reference documents was conducted (WHO Laboratory Biosafety Manual 4th ed., BMBL 6th ed., CDC Biological Risk Assessment 2024, INSST Technical Guide 2024, and relevant EU and Spanish legislation). Conceptual convergence was evaluated through qualitative thematic synthesis. The resulting 8-step protocol integrates agent Risk Group classification, procedural exposure characterization, and modulating factor evaluation into a BSL assignment matrix, and is supported by a structured assessment template and a freely accessible bilingual digital implementation tool. Validation: Framework validation rests on three complementary forms of evidence: content validity (all components derived from the ten analyzed regulatory sources), convergent validity (PSR-derived BSL assignments consistent with WHO and BMBL recommendations across all six case studies), and coverage validity (purposive case selection spanning RG1-3, Low-High PSR, escalation and reduction scenarios, and dual-technology comparison). Prospective multi-institutional inter-rater reliability assessment (target κ ≥ 0.60) constitutes the planned next validation step, supported by the digital implementation tool. Conclusion: The PSR framework provides a structured, reproducible, and immediately applicable protocol for proportionate containment in bioengineering and biotechnology settings. It is compatible with existing institutional biosafety programs and requires no structural regulatory modification for adoption. Implementation is supported by a freely accessible bilingual web tool, a structured assessment template, and six worked examples covering RG1-3 agents and diverse procedural risk levels.
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.