{"id":"W2159244155","doi":"10.1136/medethics-2011-100086","title":"Testing relationships: ethical arguments for screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus with HbA1C","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Medical Ethics","topic":"Diabetes Management and Research","field":"Medicine","cited_by":6,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"Institute of Population and Public Health; University of Calgary","funders":"Canadian Institutes of Health Research","keywords":"Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus; Disadvantaged; Medicine; Health care; Diabetes mellitus; Population; Ethical issues; Glycated haemoglobin; Type 2 diabetes; Intensive care medicine; Engineering ethics; Political science; Environmental health; Law; Engineering","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaresearch","research_integrity"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01483858,0.0001158609,0.0003444403,0.0001748437,0.0002061514,0.00002797978,0.0002503393,0.0008951553,0.0001015934],"category_scores_gemma":[0.051166,0.00007372121,0.0001148218,0.000271564,0.0002522737,0.00008842072,0.00005505061,0.004751571,0.000003902415],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00003241649,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0008822567,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000003206573,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000005241746,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9963879,0.0001697706,0.0005114707,0.0001419782,0.00242016,0.0003687078],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9912721,0.005936961,0.0002772988,0.0001403501,0.00189006,0.0004832335],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.009690139,0.002862861,0.3881143,0.0122821,0.005365683,0.0005428101,0.0106411,0.00007162178,0.0008851998,0.065276,0.04428011,0.4599881],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.07148202,0.06788644,0.229716,0.04694903,0.007317011,0.0002888639,0.007030637,0.07993647,0.005221309,0.1179358,0.3639455,0.002290963],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.4083424,0.00522065,0.3252957,0.241494,0.002646678,0.004161277,0.00001742231,0.0001810174,0.01264081],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7429031,0.0002157512,0.2496925,0.005122499,0.001304665,0.00002925304,0.00001570316,0.00005736381,0.0006592036],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.4576972,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9975445,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.3755771195750681,"score_gpt":0.4379292191468275,"score_spread":0.06235209957175941,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}