OBJECTIVE: Within translational research projects in the recent years large biobanks have been established, mostly supported by homegrown, proprietary software solutions. No general requirements for biobanking IT infrastructures have been published yet. This paper presents an exemplary biobanking IT architecture, a requirements specification for a biorepository management tool and exemplary illustrations of three major types of requirements. METHODS: We have pursued a comprehensive literature review for biobanking IT solutions and established an interdisciplinary expert panel for creating the requirements specification. The exemplary illustrations were derived from a requirements analysis within two university hospitals. RESULTS: The requirements specification comprises a catalog with more than 130 detailed requirements grouped into 3 major categories and 20 subcategories. Special attention is given to multitenancy capabilities in order to support the project-specific definition of varying research and bio-banking contexts, the definition of workflows to track sample processing, sample transportation and sample storage and the automated integration of preanalytic handling and storage robots. CONCLUSION: IT support for biobanking projects can be based on a federated architectural framework comprising primary data sources for clinical annotations, a pseudonymization service, a clinical data warehouse with a flexible and user-friendly query interface and a biorepository management system. Flexibility and scalability of all such components are vital since large medical facilities such as university hospitals will have to support biobanking for varying monocentric and multicentric research scenarios and multiple medical clients.
OBJECTIVE: Within translational research projects in the recent years large biobanks have been established, mostly supported by homegrown, proprietary software solutions. No general requirements for biobanking IT infrastructures have been published yet. This paper presents an exemplary biobanking IT architecture, a requirements specification for a biorepository management tool and exemplary illustrations of three major types of requirements. METHODS: We have pursued a comprehensive literature review for biobanking IT solutions and established an interdisciplinary expert panel for creating the requirements specification. The exemplary illustrations were derived from a requirements analysis within two university hospitals. RESULTS: The requirements specification comprises a catalog with more than 130 detailed requirements grouped into 3 major categories and 20 subcategories. Special attention is given to multitenancy capabilities in order to support the project-specific definition of varying research and bio-banking contexts, the definition of workflows to track sample processing, sample transportation and sample storage and the automated integration of preanalytic handling and storage robots. CONCLUSION: IT support for biobanking projects can be based on a federated architectural framework comprising primary data sources for clinical annotations, a pseudonymization service, a clinical data warehouse with a flexible and user-friendly query interface and a biorepository management system. Flexibility and scalability of all such components are vital since large medical facilities such as university hospitals will have to support biobanking for varying monocentric and multicentric research scenarios and multiple medical clients.
Keywords:
Requirement specification; biobanking; translational research information technology infrastructure
Authors: Andrew Grant; Andriy Moshyk; Hassan Diab; Philippe Caron; Fabien de Lorenzi; Guy Bisson; Line Menard; Richard Lefebvre; Patricia Gauthier; Richard Grondin; Michel Desautels Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2005-09-08 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Maximilian G Posch; Götz Gelbrich; Burkert Pieske; Elke Lehmkuhl; Christiane E Angermann; Stefan Störk; Till Neumann; Hans-Dirk Düngen; Thomas Scheffold; Thomas Müller-Tasch; Bernhard Maisch; Mathias Rauchhaus; Rainer Dietz; Cemil Ozcelik Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2008-07-09 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Nancy S Sung; William F Crowley; Myron Genel; Patricia Salber; Lewis Sandy; Louis M Sherwood; Stephen B Johnson; Veronica Catanese; Hugh Tilson; Kenneth Getz; Elaine L Larson; David Scheinberg; E Albert Reece; Harold Slavkin; Adrian Dobs; Jack Grebb; Rick A Martinez; Allan Korn; David Rimoin Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-03-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ashokkumar A Patel; John R Gilbertson; Anil V Parwani; Rajiv Dhir; Milton W Datta; Rajnish Gupta; Jules J Berman; Jonathan Melamed; Andre Kajdacsy-Balla; Jan Orenstein; Michael J Becich Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2006-05-05 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Thomas M Deserno; Daniel Haak; Vincent Brandenburg; Verena Deserno; Christoph Classen; Paula Specht Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: C Schüttler; N Buschhüter; C Döllinger; L Ebert; M Hummel; J Linde; H-U Prokosch; R Proynova; M Lablans Journal: Pathologe Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 1.011
Authors: Cindy Chen; Regina T Wulff; Evan T Sholle; Gail J Roboz; David A Kraemer; Thomas R Campion Journal: AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc Date: 2018-05-18
Authors: Kathryn R Napier; Megan Tones; Chloe Simons; Helen Heussler; Adam A Hunter; Meagan Cross; Matthew I Bellgard Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 4.123