ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Evidence-based standardization of infectious disease biobanking: aligning specimen preservation and clinical metadata with
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Biobanks accelerate Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 140 infectious disease IVD trials (covering HIV/AIDS, COVID-19, viral hepatitis, and tuberculosis) conducted at a major Chinese infectious disease center between 2018 and 2025. Using a standardized extraction protocol, we systematically evaluated specimen preservation parameters (sample type, aliquot volume, storage temperature, duration, and freeze-thaw cycles), clinical metadata elements (universal and disease-specific), and control sample requirements. Results: Serum/plasma was the primary matrix (75.7% of trials), followed by whole blood (20.0%), sputum (13.6%), and swabs (10.7%). Predominant aliquot volumes were 0.5-1.0 mL for serum/plasma (52% of trials), 0.1-0.5 mL for whole blood (66%), and 2.0-3.0 mL for sputum (50%). Most trials preferred frozen specimens (48.6% exclusively frozen; 37.9% accepting both). For short-term preservation (2 °C-8 °C), a 7-day window was acceptable in 56% of serum/plasma protocols; for long-term preservation, -70 °C was required for 80% of serum/plasma and 100% of sputum samples. Strict freeze-thaw avoidance was mandated in 64% of serum/plasma, 72% of whole blood, and 60% of swab protocols. Core metadata (sample type and clinical diagnosis) were universally recorded (100%), whereas disease-specific laboratory parameters and control sample showed marked variation across disease categories. Conclusion: This single-center analysis offers preliminary evidence for a framework to standardize infectious disease biobanking practices tailored to IVD clinical trials. Implementation of the proposed preservation guidelines and tiered metadata framework, including standardized aliquot volumes, temperature-dependent storage protocols, strict freeze-thaw limitations, and strategic accrual of diverse control specimens, has the potential to optimize specimen utility, accelerate diagnostic development, and strengthen outbreak preparedness. However, external validation through multicenter studies is needed before these recommendations can be generalized to other settings.
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.