MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039023690 · doi:10.1159/000362648

The Role of Diagnostic Tissue in Research

2014· review· en· W2039023690 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePathobiology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYTissue bankTumour tissueMedicineClinical researchHuman researchComputer sciencePathologyMedical physicsPsychologyBiologyCognitive science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are two broad classes (or categories) of excised human tissue: diagnostic tissue (DT) and research tissue (RT). Classification of excised human tissue does not define its ultimate use and ultimate use of excised human tissue does not define its classification. While both DT and RT can be used for research, DT has specific requirements with respect to how it must be handled if and when being accessed for research. We highlight distinguishing features of DT: (1) it is a clinical record, (2) it must be identifiable to a specific individual, (3) it is stewarded by pathology departments/clinical laboratories and (4) it has a mandatory retention period. We discuss how the further sub-classification of DT into archived DT (aDT) and excess DT (eDT) impacts the nature of its role in research. We examine the concept of DT as a clinical record and emphasize the impact of mandatory retention as it applies to how DT may be accessed for research purposes. We explain the role of post-retention eDT as a source of RT as well as procedures for access to in-retention aDT for research. Clarity of such issues will facilitate responsible access to DT for research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.263
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.263
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.752
GPT teacher head0.721
Teacher spread0.030 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it