HIV/AIDS Research Conducted in the Developing World and Sponsored by the Developed World: Reporting of Research Ethics Committee Review in Two Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explored how often journal articles reporting HIV research sponsored by a developed country, but conducted in a developing country, mention research ethics committee (REC) approval from both countries, and what factors are involved. Of all such 2007 articles on Medline conducted in one of four developing countries (N = 154), only 52% mentioned such dual approval. Mention of dual vs. single approval was more likely among articles with ≥ 50% sponsor country authors, and the United States as the sponsor country. Also, dual approval was more likely among articles that mentioned informed consent and funding, had ≥ 50% sponsor country authors, were biomedical (vs. psychosocial), and appeared in journals adopting International Committee Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines. Dual approval was thus obtained in only half of the articles and was associated with ethical and logistic issues, indicating the need for clearer and more universally accepted guidelines.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.796 | 0.780 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.173 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads 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".