Is Consent Required For Publication of Medical Errors?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Publication of information about medical errors is critical to error prevention and shared learning among health professionals and institutions. While some countries have error reporting systems in place, journal publications are still essential reference tools for learning about error, and editorial policies about when to publish errors are needed, as these provide important guidance to journal editorial boards. While there is a prima facie moral requirement to obtain consent to publish patient information, publication without patient consent may be justified if certain criteria are met. Justification will involve consideration of a variety of principles, rules and conditions grounded in ethics, law and policy. Except in exceptional circumstances of overriding importance to public health, a patient's personal information should not be published over the patient's refusal. But what constitutes "exceptional circumstances of overriding importance to public health"? We argue that medical error is one such circumstance and present an argument in favour of a specific policy stance on publication of medical errors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.313 | 0.628 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.057 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".