MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W42685190

The landscape of rules governing access to personal information for health research: a view from afar.

2003· article· en· W42685190 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Patricia Kosseim

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEthics in Clinical Research
Établissements canadiensCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMeaning (existential)Set (abstract data type)Public relationsOrder (exchange)Context (archaeology)Process (computing)Internet privacySociologyPolitical scienceBusinessLaw and economicsPsychologyComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

What is asked, or should be asked, of the law student is not that he learn, by heart, and in all their detail, all the rules in force during his time as student: that will be of little service to him in his later professional life when many of those rules will have changed. Of far greater importance to the student will be a knowledge of the structure within which the rules and concepts are organized, the meaning of these categories and concepts, and the relationship of the rules among themselves. The legislators may, indeed, with a stroke of the pen modify the actual legal rules, but these other elements and features nonetheless subsist. They cannot be so arbitrarily changed because they are intimately linked to our civilization and ways of thinking. The legislators can have no more effect on them than upon our language or our reasoning process. (1) Introduction How can we uphold the individual right of privacy in respect of personal information, while also allow necessary access to that information for bona fide health research in order to improve the health of Canadians and their health services? How can we develop a coherent set of norms that respects Canadians' values and strikes a socially acceptable balance between them? How can we ensure that these norms are workable in practice and sufficiently compatible to govern transfers of data across different jurisdictions and/or sectors of activity? Such has been identified as one of the major public policy challenges in the current context of health care reform. The Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology recently described the challenge as follows: The right to privacy and confidentiality of personal health information is a very important value for Canadians. Now more than ever, Canadians need reassurance that their privacy and confidentiality will be respected in this era of rapidly advancing technology. However, the quality of their health and health care is also a value that Canadians cherish very dearly. Health care providers, health care managers and health researchers need access to personal health information to improve the health of Canadians, strengthen health services and sustain a high quality health care system. The present challenge for Canadians is to set acceptable limits around the right to privacy, on the one hand, and the need for access to information (by health care providers, managers and researchers) on the other, in order to achieve an appropriate balance between them. (2) Similarly, Commissioner Roy J. Romanow Q.C. echoed these concerns when he articulated the challenge in these terms: Some might wonder why a chapter on information would figure so prominently and be placed at the beginning of a report on the future of Canada's health care system. The answer is that leading-edge information, technology assessment and research are essential foundations for all of the reforms outlined in subsequent chapters of this report. Furthermore, health research--especially biomedical and scientific research--is an increasingly important component of Canada's knowledge economy and a source of high-skilled, well-paid employment for thousands of Canadians ... With better information management and technology in place, researchers can assess the impact and value of different treatments and approaches to delivering health care services in addition to developing and testing new discoveries and cures ... Researchers and policy-makers would have access to aggregate data compiled through the electronic health record system. These data could be extracted generically for health research purposes, without being linked to any individual electronic health record. The Commission understands that researchers would, in many cases, prefer to have access to person-oriented health information to allow them to track certain illnesses or health-related factors over time. …

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,075
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,925
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,832

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0750,058
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0030,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0320,133
Communication savante0,0500,028
Science ouverte0,0050,011
Intégrité de la recherche0,0330,036
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,002

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,712
Tête enseignante GPT0,590
Écart entre enseignants0,122 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
DomaineMéthodes
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2003
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMedMême sujetEthics in Clinical ResearchTravaux en français237 207