Quantifying the impact of biobanks and cohort studies

Biobanks advance biomedical and clinical research by collecting and offering data and biological samples for numerous studies. However, the impact of these repositories varies greatly due to differences in their purpose, scope, governance, and data collected. Here, we computationally identified 2,663 biobanks and their textual mentions in 228,761 scientific articles, 16,210 grants, 15,469 patents, 1,769 clinical trials, and 9,468 public policy documents, helping characterize the academic communities that utilize and support them. We found a strong concentration of biobank-related research on a few diseases, including obesity, Alzheimer's disease, breast cancer, and diabetes. Moreover, collaboration, rather than citation count, shapes the community's recognition of a biobank. We show that, on average, 41.1% of articles fail to reference any of the biobank's reference papers, but 59.6% include a biobank member as a coauthor. Using a generalized linear model, we identified the key factors that contribute to the impact of a biobank, finding that an impactful biobank tends to be more open to external researchers and that quality data-especially linked medical records-as opposed to large data, correlates with a higher impact in science, innovation, and disease. The collected data and findings are accessible through an open-access web application intended to inform strategies to expand access and maximize the value of these resources.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2025-04-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2427157122
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Ethics in Clinical Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.51

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Quantifying the impact of biobanks and cohort studies

Lauren Costa, Albert-Ĺaszló Barabási, Kerry L. Ivey, Kelly Cho et al.
4 citations
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Ethics in Clinical Research
7.51
article

Quantifying the impact of biobanks and cohort studies

Lauren Costa, Albert-Ĺaszló Barabási, Kerry L. Ivey, Kelly Cho, Rodrigo Dorantes-Gilardi, Rachael Matty, John Michael Gaziano
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Biobanks advance biomedical and clinical research by collecting and offering data and biological samples for numerous studies. However, the impact of these repositories varies greatly due to differences in their purpose, scope, governance, and data collected. Here, we computationally identified 2,663 biobanks and their textual mentions in 228,761 scientific articles, 16,210 grants, 15,469 patents, 1,769 clinical trials, and 9,468 public policy documents, helping characterize the academic communities that utilize and support them. We found a strong concentration of biobank-related research on a few diseases, including obesity, Alzheimer's disease, breast cancer, and diabetes. Moreover, collaboration, rather than citation count, shapes the community's recognition of a biobank. We show that, on average, 41.1% of articles fail to reference any of the biobank's reference papers, but 59.6% include a biobank member as a coauthor. Using a generalized linear model, we identified the key factors that contribute to the impact of a biobank, finding that an impactful biobank tends to be more open to external researchers and that quality data-especially linked medical records-as opposed to large data, correlates with a higher impact in science, innovation, and disease. The collected data and findings are accessible through an open-access web application intended to inform strategies to expand access and maximize the value of these resources.

Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesVol. 122(16)
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US), Harvard University (US), VA Boston Healthcare System (US), The Coordinating Center (US), General Department of Preventive Medicine (VN), Universidad del Noreste (MX)
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Ethics in Clinical Research
7.51
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.