Metadata Quality for Biobanks
Source abstract
Abstract
The mission of biobanks is to provide biological material and data for medical research. Reproducible medical studies of high quality require material and data with established quality. Metadata, defined as data that provides information about other data, represents the content of biobank collections, particularly which data accompanies the stored samples and which quality the available data features. The quality of biobank metadata themselves, however, is currently neither properly defined nor investigated in depth. We list the properties of biobanks that are most important for metadata quality management and emphasize both the role of biobanks as data brokers, which are responsible not for the quality of the data itself but for the quality of its representation, and the importance of supporting the search for biobank collections when the sample data is not accessible. Based on an intensive review of metadata definitions and definitions of quality characteristics, we establish clear definitions of metadata quality attributes and their metrics in a design science approach. In particular, we discuss the quality measures accuracy, completeness, coverage, consistency, timeliness, provenance, reliability, accessibility, and conformance to expectations together with their respective metrics. These definitions are intended as a foundation for establishing metadata quality management systems for biobanks.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Ethics in Clinical Research · Data Quality and Management · Research Data Management Practices
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Informatics Systems, Universität Klagenfurt, Universitätsstraße 65-67, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria
Funding
Austrian Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung
References (60)
Show source-provided references
1. Standard preanalytical coding for biospecimens: Review and implementation of the Sample PREanalytical Code (SPREC)10.1089/bio.2012.0012 ↗
2. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ)10.1021/pr200021n ↗
3. De Blasio, P., and Biunno, I. (2021). New Challenges for Biobanks: Accreditation to the New ISO 20387: 2018 Standard Specific for Biobanks. BioTech, 10.10.3390/biotech10030013 ↗
4. Toward global biobank integration by implementation of the minimum information about biobank data sharing (MIABIS 2.0 Core)10.1089/bio.2015.0070 ↗
5. Data quality for federated medical data lakes10.1108/IJWIS-03-2021-0026 ↗
6. IT solutions for privacy protection in biobanking10.1159/000336663 ↗
7. Riley, J. (2017). Understanding Metadata, National Information Standards Organization.
8. Anonymization of data sets with null values
9. Stark, K., Eder, J., and Zatloukal, K. (2006, January 4–8). Priority-based k-anonymity accomplished by weighted generalisation structures. Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Warehousing and Knowledge Discovery, Krakow, Poland.10.1007/11823728_38 ↗
10. Shekhovtsov, V.A., and Eder, J. (2021). Data Item Quality for Biobanks. Transactions on Large-Scale Data-and Knowledge-Centered Systems L, Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-64553-6_5 ↗
11. Biobanks for life sciences and personalized medicine: Importance of standardization, biosafety, biosecurity, and data management10.1016/j.copbio.2019.12.004 ↗
12. Quinlan, P.R., Gardner, S., Groves, M., Emes, R., and Garibaldi, J. (2015). A data-centric strategy for modern biobanking. Biobanking in the 21st Century, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-20579-3_13 ↗
13. Eder, J., Dabringer, C., Schicho, M., and Stark, K. (2009). Information systems for federated biobanks. Transactions on Large-Scale Data-and Knowledge-Centered Systems I, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-03722-1_7 ↗
14. Karimi-Busheri, F., and Rasouli-Nia, A. (2015). Integration, networking, and global biobanking in the age of new biology. Biobanking in the 21st Century, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-20579-3 ↗
15. (2022, August 02). ASQ Quality Glossary. Available online: https://asq.org/quality-resources/quality-glossary.
16. A comprehensive quality model for Linked Data10.3233/SW-170267 ↗
17. Lei, Y., Uren, V., and Motta, E. (2007, January 28–31). A framework for evaluating semantic metadata. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Knowledge Capture, Whistler, BC, Canada.10.1145/1298406.1298431 ↗
18. Margaritopoulos, T., Margaritopoulos, M., Mavridis, I., and Manitsaris, A. (2008, January 22–26). A Conceptual Framework for Metadata Quality Assessment. Proceedings of the DCMI International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, Germany.
19. Bruce, T.R., and Hillmann, D.I. (2004). The continuum of metadata quality: Defining, expressing, exploiting. Metadata in Practice, ALA Editions.
20. Stvilia, B., Gasser, L., Twidale, M.B., Shreeves, S.L., and Cole, T.W. (2004, January 5–7). Metadata quality for federated collections. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Information Quality (ICIQ-04), Cambridge, MA, USA.
21. A framework for information quality assessment10.1002/asi.20652 ↗
22. Gavrilis, D., Makri, D.N., Papachristopoulos, L., Angelis, S., Kravvaritis, K., Papatheodorou, C., and Constantopoulos, P. (2015, January 14–18). Measuring quality in metadata repositories. Proceedings of the International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries, Poznań, Poland.10.1007/978-3-319-24592-8_5 ↗
23. Király, P. (2017, January 1–2). Towards an extensible measurement of metadata quality. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Digital Access to Textual Cultural Heritage, Göttingen, Germany.10.1145/3078081.3078109 ↗
24. Király, P. (2019). Measuring Metadata Quality. [Ph.D. Thesis, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen].
25. “What is a good digital library?”—A quality model for digital libraries10.1016/j.ipm.2006.11.010 ↗
26. Automatic evaluation of metadata quality in digital repositories10.1007/s00799-009-0054-4 ↗
27. Romero-Pelaez, A., Segarra-Faggioni, V., and Alarcon, P.P. (2018, January 26–28). Exploring the provenance and accuracy as metadata quality metrics in assessment resources of OCW repositories. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers, Tokyo, Japan.10.1145/3290511.3290540 ↗
28. Koesten, L.M., Kacprzak, E., Tennison, J.F., and Simperl, E. (2017, January 6–11). The Trials and Tribulations of Working with Structured Data: A Study on Information Seeking Behaviour. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA.10.1145/3025453.3025838 ↗
29. Strecker, D. (2021). Quantitative Assessment of Metadata Collections of Research Data Repositories. [Ph.D. Thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin].
30. Metadata quality in digital repositories: A survey of the current state of the art
31. Dealing with metadata quality: The legacy of digital library efforts10.1016/j.ipm.2013.05.003 ↗
32. A design framework and exemplar metrics for FAIRness10.1038/sdata.2018.118 ↗
33. GO FAIR Metrics Group (2022, August 04). FAIR Metrics. Available online: http://fairmetrics.org.
34. FAIR Metadata Standards for Low Carbon Energy Research—A Review of Practices and How to Advance
35. (2008). Software Engineering—Software Product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)—Data Quality Model (Standard No. ISO/IEC 25012:2008).
36. (2015). Software Engineering–Software Product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)—Measurement of Data Quality (Standard No. ISO/IEC 25024:2015).
37. Automated quality assessment of metadata across open data portals10.1145/2964909 ↗
38. Quarati, A. (2021). Open Government Data: Usage trends and metadata quality. J. Inf. Sci., 01655515211027775.10.3390/ijgi10010030 ↗
39. Gentry, S., Hale, M.L., Payant, A., Tarver, H., White, R., and Wittmann, R. (2020). Survey of Benchmarks in Metadata Quality: Initial Findings, UNT Digital Library, University of North Texas. Available online: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1637685.
40. Király, P., and Büchler, M. (2018, January 25–30). Measuring completeness as metadata quality metric in Europeana. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), Seattle, WA, USA.10.1109/BigData.2018.8622487 ↗
41. Quantifying and Measuring Metadata Completeness10.1002/asi.21706 ↗
42. Sartori, F., Sicilia, M.A., and Manouselis, N. (2009, January 10–12). A Fine-Grained Metric System for the Completeness of Metadata. Proceedings of the Conference Paper in Communications in Computer and Information Science, Jeju Island, Korea.
43. Complete metadata records in learning object repositories: Some evidence and requirements10.1504/IJLT.2005.007152 ↗
44. Phillips, M. (2022, August 05). Metadata Quality, Completeness, and Minimally Viable Records. Available online: https://vphill.com/journal/post/4075.
45. Nichols, D.M., McKay, D., and Twidale, M.B. (2008, January 16–20). A lightweight metadata quality tool. Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.10.1145/1378889.1378957 ↗
46. Weights Estimation in the Completeness Measurement of Bibliographic Metadata
47. On assessing metadata completeness in digital cultural heritage repositories10.1093/llc/fqab036 ↗
48. The Metadata Coverage Index (MCI): A standardized metric for quantifying database metadata richness10.4056/sigs.2675953 ↗
49. Metadata Quality Assessment Tool for Open Access Cultural Heritage Institutional Repositories
50. (2022, August 05). Open Language Archives Community (OLAC) Metadata Metrics. Available online: http://www.language-archives.org/OLAC/metadata.html.
51. Increasing metadata coverage of SRA BioSample entries using deep learning-based named entity recognition10.1093/database/baab021 ↗
52. Context is everything: Harmonization of critical food microbiology descriptors and metadata for improved food safety and surveillance10.3389/fmicb.2017.01068 ↗
53. MetaCrowd: Crowdsourcing biomedical metadata quality assessment10.15346/hc.v6i1.6 ↗
54. Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., and Viviani, M. (November, January 31). Adding a peer-to-peer trust layer to metadata generators. Proceedings of the OTM Confederated International Conferences “On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems”, Agia Napa, Cyprus.
55. Kapidakis, S. (2016, January 5–9). Exploring metadata providers reliability and update behavior. Proceedings of the International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries, Hannover, Germany.10.1007/978-3-319-43997-6_36 ↗
56. Assessment of metadata quality of the Swedish National Bibliography through mapping user awareness
57. Rethinking Metadata’s Value and How It Is Evaluated10.1080/07317131.2020.1810443 ↗
58. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship10.1038/sdata.2016.18 ↗
59. Exploring the utility of metadata record graphs and network analysis for metadata quality evaluation and augmentation10.1504/IJMSO.2020.108326 ↗
60. A mathematical theory of communication10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x ↗