Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42620204›Full record

ArticleResearch square2026

When does broad consent expire? A temporal validity framework for biobank samples in induced pluripotent stem cell research.

Peter A Ikhane, Sally N Adebamowo, Temilola Yusuf, Clement A Adebamowo

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Peter A IkhaneUniversity of Maryland School of Medicine.
Sally N AdebamowoUniversity of Maryland School of Medicine.
Temilola YusufCenter for Bioethics and Research.
Clement A AdebamowoUniversity of Maryland School of Medicine.

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GREENEBAUM CANCER CENTERSUPPORT GRANTP30CA134274 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI FEYRUZ VIRGILIA RASSOOL · 2008 to 2026
$51.0M
Bridging Gaps in the ELSI of Data Science Health Research in Nigeria (BridgELSI)U01MH127693 · NIMH · CENTER FOR BIOETHICS AND RESEARCH, NIGERIA · PI ADEBAMOWO, CLEMENT ADEBAYO, OGUNDIRAN, TEMIDAYO OLUSADE · 2021 to 2025
$2.0M
Eastern Nigeria Research Ethics Training (ENRICH) ProgramR25TW011811 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI Clement Adebayo Adebamowo, EMMANUEL EZEOME · 2021 to 2026
$1.6M
FIC NIH HHS R25 TW011811NCI NIH HHS P30 CA134274NIMH NIH HHS U01 MH127693
6 · The paper itself

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

biobank samplesbroad consentdynamic consentinduced pluripotent stem cellslow- and middle-income countriesNigeriare-consentresearch ethicstemporal validity

Identifiers

PMID42620204
PMCPMC13484822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.