MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049088765 · doi:10.3325/cmj.2009.50.105

7th Revision of the Declaration of Helsinki: Good News for the Transparency of Clinical Trials

2009· article· en· W2049088765 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

VenueCroatian Medical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanadian Institute for Health Information
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeclaration of HelsinkiTransparency (behavior)DeclarationClinical trialMedical researchHelsinki declarationPolitical scienceMedicinePublic relationsPublic administrationInformed consentLawAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In October 2008, the 59th World Medical Association (WMA) General Assembly in Seoul adopted the 7th revision of the Declaration of Helsinki: “Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.” This 2008 revision contains important new requirements related to the registration of clinical trials and reporting of their results. These provisions confirm the growing recognition that transparency is a crucial component of medical research that promotes the public interest. This article discusses briefly the background to these provisions, looks at the implications of the changes to the Declaration of Helsinki, and explores some of the remaining challenges.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.237
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.249 · 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