Opinions Regarding Who Should Consent to Research on Behalf of an Older Adult Suffering from Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many jurisdictions, consent to research on a decisionally incompetent adult can be provided only by the legal guardian. Yet, few cognitively impaired older adults are legally represented. This article reports on a postal survey eliciting the opinions of concerned individuals regarding who should decide whether an incompetent older adult will participate in research. Four groups of people were targeted by the survey: older adults, informal caregivers of cognitively impaired patients, researchers in ageing, and members of institutional review boards. Opinions were similar across the four groups and varied with the degree of risk involved in the study. In the absence of risk, most respondents did not think that the surrogate decision-maker must be legally appointed. As the amount of risk increased, the proportion of respondents who believed consent could be provided by a significant other without legal authority decreased, while that against soliciting cognitively impaired patients tended to increase.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".