ArticleResearch square2026
When does broad consent expire? A temporal validity framework for biobank samples in induced pluripotent stem cell research.
Article in Research square, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) research increasingly draws on biobank samples collected years or decades earlier under broad consent for future unspecified use. We previously reported that the time elapsed between original sample collection and a proposed new use shaped whether community members and bioethicists regard the original broad consent as still sufficient, and identified this association as a novel finding, but we did not translate it into an operational standard. We address that gap in this paper. Methods: We conducted and analyzed key informant interviews with six Community Advisory Board (CAB) members and five bioethicists, and two focus group discussions with twenty community members, from a study of the YRI HapMap community in Ibadan, Nigeria. We coded the transcripts against two Results: Participants treated broad consent as durable but conditional rather than open-ended. Duration thresholds recurred across independent groups: renewal "at 5-year intervals," a fixed "time limit… like 20 years," and, at the permissive extreme, validity "to 50, 100 years." Duration and technological novelty operated jointly rather than separately; several participants tied renewal explicitly to technology "changing," and bioethicists distinguished elapsed time from the separate problem that the original consent language never contemplated iPSC-type uses. Anonymity of the original donors and continuity of the CAB shaped how participants resolved the two constraints, and several proposed the CAB as a surrogate re-authorizing body once individual re-contact was no longer feasible. We translate these findings into a four-state framework - presumptively valid, requires community reaffirmation, requires new authorization, and requires de novo consent - defined by elapsed-time bands crossed with a technology-novelty category. Conclusions: Elapsed time is not, by itself, an expiration date for broad consent. It is one input, alongside technological novelty and the persistence of trust infrastructure such as CAB continuity and community reporting, into a graded governance decision. The framework gives biobanks and research ethics committees a reproducible way to decide when broad consent for a sample collection still holds, when it needs reaffirmation, and when it does not.
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.