medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
Toward Standards for Donor-Level Metadata Reporting in Human Tissue Research: Perspectives from Tissue Researchers.
СтатьяПрепринтНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liu-Galvin Rachel, Tran Kathy, Khan Mishal, Eadon Michael T, Sarder Pinaki, Levites Strekalova Yulia A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: No widely adopted guidelines exist for collecting and reporting donor-level metadata in tissue-based research, limiting interpretability, reproducibility, and potentially introducing bias. This study aimed to inform ethical and appropriate metadata practices.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 investigators from the Human BioMolecular Atlas Program. Thematic analysis using inductively derived codes identified metadata elements and perspectives on their collection and reporting.
RESULTS: Participants identified 80 metadata variables across six domains: demographic, sociodemographic, medical history, personally identifying information, cause of death, and tissue/organ data. Most supported routine collection and reporting of demographics and medical history, whereas views on cause of death and sociodemographic data were mixed.
CONCLUSION: We recommend routinely collecting and reporting demographics and medical history, while restricting cause of death and sociodemographic variables to situations with explicit consent or justification. These findings provide initial evidence to inform ethical donor metadata guidelines, with further stakeholder engagement and consensus-building needed.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 investigators from the Human BioMolecular Atlas Program. Thematic analysis using inductively derived codes identified metadata elements and perspectives on their collection and reporting.
RESULTS: Participants identified 80 metadata variables across six domains: demographic, sociodemographic, medical history, personally identifying information, cause of death, and tissue/organ data. Most supported routine collection and reporting of demographics and medical history, whereas views on cause of death and sociodemographic data were mixed.
CONCLUSION: We recommend routinely collecting and reporting demographics and medical history, while restricting cause of death and sociodemographic variables to situations with explicit consent or justification. These findings provide initial evidence to inform ethical donor metadata guidelines, with further stakeholder engagement and consensus-building needed.