Warning about Warnings: Weighing Risk and Benefit When Information Is in a State of Flux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2010, new data about the safety of recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) resulted in warnings and subsequent pronouncements by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and its European counterpart [the European Medicines Agency (EMA)] regarding its use in children and adolescents as an elective treatment for short stature. However, opinions about these new data are divergent: the FDA did not change the label of the drug and experts have argued for further research on the safety of rhGH. In this situation of an evolving scientific controversy, it is unclear how questions about benefit and risk are communicated to patients and their parents. Social biases and misperceptions about the deleterious effects of short stature and the benefits of added height influence decisions to prescribe rhGH and may affect discussions of the warnings by regulators. Fully supporting a model of shared decision-making involving children and adolescents requires sharing risk-benefit information, including evolving information from drug regulators, with patients and parents.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".