UK Biobank: Current status and what it means for epidemiology

Health Policy and Technology

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 123-126

  Allen, Naomi ^a,b   Sudlow, Cathie ^a,c   Downey, Paul ^a   Peakman, Tim ^a   Danesh, John ^d   Elliott, Paul ^e   Gallacher, John ^f   Green, Jane ^g   Matthews, Paul ^e   Pell, Jill ^h   Sprosen, Tim ^e   Collins, Rory ^a,b  

^a UK BIOBANK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^e IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^f Neuadd Meirionnydd ^*  (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^h UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ARTICLE; BLOOD SAMPLING; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; FOLLOW UP; GENETICS; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INTERNET; LIFESTYLE; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NUTRITIONAL ASSESSMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHENOTYPE; POPULATION RESEARCH; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; UK BIOBANK; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 84866173675     PISSN: 22118837     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2012.07.003     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Palmer LJ UK Biobank: bank on it. Lancet 2007, 369:1980-1982.
2. UK Biobank. UK Biobank: rationale, design and development of a large-scale prospective resource, http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/resources/.
3. Burton P.R., Hansell A.L., Fortier I., et al. Size matters: just how big is BIG?: Quantifying realistic sample size requirements for human genome epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 2009, 38:263-273.
4. Manolio T.A., Bailey-Wilson J.E., Genes Collins FS. Environment and the value of prospective cohort studies. Nat Rev Genet 2006, 7:812-820.
5. Grimes D.A., Schulz K.F. Cohort studies: marching towards outcomes. Lancet 2002, 359:341-345.
6. Whitlock G., Lewington S., Sherliker P., et al. Body-mass index and cause-specific mortality in 900,000 adults: collaborative analyses of 57 prospective studies. Lancet 2009, 373:1083-1096.
7. Higgins M.W. The Framingham Heart Study: review of epidemiological design and data, limitations and prospects. Prog Clin Biol Res 1984, 147:51-64.
8. The Million Women Study Collaborative Group. The million women study: design and characteristics of the study population. Breast Cancer Res 1999;1:73-80.
9. Riboli E., Kaaks R. The EPIC Project: rationale and study design. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Int J Epidemiol 1997, 26(Suppl. 1):S6-S14.
10. Elliott P., Peakman T.C. The UK Biobank sample handling and storage protocol for the collection, processing and archiving of human blood and urine. Int J Epidemiol 2008, 37:234-244.
11. Liu B., Young H., Crowe F.L., et al. Development and evaluation of the Oxford WebQ, a low-cost, web-based method for assessment of previous 24h dietary intakes in large-scale prospective studies. Public Health Nutr 2011, 14:1998-2005.
12. Clarke R., Shipley M., Lewington S., et al. Underestimation of risk associations due to regression dilution in long-term follow-up of prospective studies. Am J Epidemiol 1999, 150:341-353.
13. UK Biobank. Access Procedures: application and review procedures for access to the UK Biobank Resource, http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/resources/.
14. Fortier I., Burton P.R., Robson P.J., et al. Quality, quantity and harmony: the DataSHaPER approach to integrating data across bioclinical studies. Int J Epidemiol 2010, 39:1383-1393.
15. BBMRI. Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure, http://wwwbbmri.eu/.