ArticleAmerican journal of veterinary research2026
Establishing a standardized biorepository across 3 clinical and translational science center-affiliated veterinary institutions is feasible and productive.
Article in American journal of veterinary research, 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To assess faculty interest in veterinary biospecimens, develop a standardized multi-institutional biological fluid repository across 3 veterinary institutions, and assess quality and fitness for purpose of archived samples. Methods: We conducted a prospective multi-institutional biobanking and feasibility study from 2022 through 2025. Faculty from each institution were administered a voluntary and anonymous survey via email, and responses were recorded. Biological fluid specimens were collected and archived from the Neurology and Neurosurgery Services of each participating institution. A shared database (Freezerworks) was utilized by all 3 institutions to annotate each sample with clinical data and record the storage location. Selected serum (n = 12), CSF (n = 12), and urine (n = 9) samples were assessed for quality control and fitness for purpose by measuring concentrations of putative biomarkers via ELISAs and single-molecule array, respectively. Results: Faculty surveys indicated widespread support for centralized institutional biobanking, with 94 of 170 respondents (55%) in favor of a combination of institutional and investigator financial support. Over 2,500 biological specimens from dogs and cats with neurological disease were collected during the 3-year study period. Sample quality across serum, urine, and CSF was consistent across institutions. Moreover, serum samples from randomly selected dogs with divergent diagnoses yielded robust and discriminatory concentrations of putative neurodegenerative disease proteins. Conclusions: Multi-institutional veterinary biobanking is feasible and productive, providing investigators with access to clinically annotated, high-quality biospecimens. Clinical Relevance: A common repository registry, wherein investigators have reciprocal access to standardized biospecimens, will connect investigators from all domains to promote rigorous, well-powered multicenter studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.