MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046743472 · doi:10.1080/08989621003641165

Disclosure of Unknown Harms in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Research

2010· article· en· W2046743472 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueAccountability in Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchU.S. Food and Drug Administration
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingResearch ethicsMedicineEthical issuesModality (human–computer interaction)Informed consentInstitutional review boardMedical physicsPsychologyComputer scienceEngineering ethicsRadiologyPathologyPsychiatryAlternative medicineArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unknown harms are by their nature difficult to communicate. While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has known risks (e.g., metal projectiles, dislodgement of medical implants), this imaging modality also has potential unknown long-term negative health effects associated with its static magnetic fields. We carried out a research ethics board (REB) file review of previously approved MRI research studies and found that unknown risks were either left undisclosed or were inadequately disclosed to research participants and REBs. This article outlines issues raised by our REB file review and suggests steps that should be taken in order to satisfactorily communicate information about potential unknown harms of MRI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.303
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.545
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3030.545
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.015
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0210.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.362 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccountability in ResearchSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207