Human Subject Research: Reporting Ethics Approval and Informed Consent in 3 Chiropractic Journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To date, there have been no reports of ethics board approval or informed consent within the chiropractic literature or within chiropractic research. The purpose of this study was to assess the reporting of ethics approval and informed consent in articles published during the 2008 volume year of 3 chiropractic research journals included in PubMed. METHODS: A quantitative assessment of the articles published in each journal for the 2008 volume year was performed. Information collected included if the article involved human subject research, if it reported ethics board approval, and if informed consent was given to subjects. Data were collected as descriptive statistics (frequency counts and percentages). RESULTS: In aggregate, 50 articles of a total of 143 published involved human subject research (35%). 44 reported ethics board approval (88%), and 28 reported that informed consent had been obtained (56%). Forty-five percent of articles published in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics involved human subject research (39/87), of which 95% reported ethics board approval (37/39) and 64% reported informed consent (25/39); 12.5% of articles from the Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association involved human subject research (5/40), of which 80% reported ethics board approval (4/5) and 40% reported informed consent (2/5); and 37.5% of articles published in Chiropractic and Osteopathy involved human subject research (6/16), of which 50% reported ethics board approval (3/6) and 17% reported informed consent (1/6). CONCLUSION: Overall, most articles reported ethics approval, and more than half reported consent. This was harmonious with research on this topic from other disciplines. This situation indicates a need for continued quality improvement and for better instruction and dissemination of information on these issues to researchers, to manuscript reviewers, to journal editors, and to the readers.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | MetaresearchResearch integrity Domain: Reporting · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | MetaresearchResearch integrity Domain: Reporting · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | medium |
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 | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".