Guidelines for confidentiality and cancer registration
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
British Journal of Cancer (2005) 92, 2095–2096. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602618 www.bjcancer.comPublished online 10 May 2005& 2005 Cancer Research UKSir,Legislation and professional guidance on confidentiality inmedical research has increased significantly in the past 10 years(Stiller, 1993; Working Group to the Royal College of PhysiciansCommittee on Ethical Issues in Medicine, 1994; EuropeanParliament, 1995; The Caldicott Committee, 1997; Department ofHealth, 1999; General Medical Council, 2000; Medical ResearchCouncil, 2000; Coker and McKee, 2001; Confidentiality andSecurity Advisory Group for Scotland, 2002; Council for Inter-national Organizations of Medical Sciences, 2002; InformationCommissioner, 2002).Numerous reports have been issued by national and inter-national bodies (Lowrance, 1997; National Health and MedicalResearch Council, 1999; Canadian Institutes of Health Research,2001; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,2001; Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences,2002; Lowrance, 2002; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2002; WorldMedical Association, 2002a,b; Medical Research Council, 2003;National Institutes of Health, 2004).There is very wide debate over the appropriate balance to bestruck between increasing demands for personal autonomy, on theone hand, and, on the other, the need for society to learn from theexperience of individual patients, in order to understand how bestto control disease – this is also in the interests of individuals. Thedebate has often focused on the confidentiality of individual healthdata and the need for informed consent before such data can beused in research (Vandenbroucke, 1992; Vanchieri, 1993; Stroblet al, 2000; Anderson, 2001; Bastian, 2001; Doll, 2001; Doll andPeto, 2001; Cassell and Young, 2002; Greenberg, 2002; Kulynychand Korn, 2002a,b; Verity and Nicoll, 2002; Coleman et al, 2003;De Vet et al, 2003; Ingelfinger and Drazen, 2004; Peto et al, 2004;Tu et al, 2004; Robling et al, 2005).The International Association of Cancer Registries (IACR)published guidance on confidentiality for cancer registries in theBritish Journal of Cancer in 1992 (Coleman et al, 1992). Somenational and regional cancer registry associations incorporatedthe IACR guidance in their own guidelines. At the IACR scientificmeeting in Tampere, Finland, in 2002, it was decided to update theguidance. A review seemed appropriate after 10 years. EuropeanUnion (EU) legislation on the protection of personal data hadcome into force in all member states during this period, andthe EU Directive (European Parliament, 1995) has served as amodel for national legislation in many countries outside Europe.Rapid developments in web-based communication also motivatedrevision of the guidance, with a view to appropriate use ofthis technology, with the attendant risks of breach of confiden-tiality. The guidance was revised by a small group, endorsed bythe IACR Board in 2004, and made available at www.iacr.com.fr/confidentiality2004.pdf.The main changes from the previous version are: a clear description of the principles of confidentiality, as theyrelate to identifiable data and the registration of cancer; an update of measures to protect data confidentiality; guidance on security for both traditional paper-based systemsand modern electronically based data systems; and expanded recommendations designed to ensure confidentialityin data releases for research, including cross-border transfers.The updated IACR guidance on confidentiality in the cancerregistry should help the cancer research community continue toprovide useful information on the causes, treatment and outcomeof cancer in the entire population, while maintaining the highestethical standards in confidential data collection and research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle