Ethics in Oncology: Consulting for the Investment Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Ethics Committee Chair, I am pleased to introduce the first in an ongoing series of ethics vignettes. These columns, which are based on true-to-life situations that arise in oncology research and practice, are intended to identify and explore important ethical issues and provide commentary that is specific to oncology. Please look for them periodically in both the Journal of Clinical Oncology and the Journal of Oncology Practice. The idea for publishing vignettes evolved through the joint efforts of the Ethics Committee and the Board of Directors. Rather than adopt a single set of ethical principles that applies vaguely to any situation and well to none, the Committee and the Board preferred to tackle ethical dilemmas individually, specifically, and directly. Because the Ethics Committee thought the ethical and legal implications of physician interactions with the investment industry were so important and timely, it chose to address this topic in both a position article, which was previously published in the January 20, 2007, issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology (J Clin Oncol 25:338-340, 2007) and in its first vignette column. The Ethics Committee hopes this column will be the first of several that ASCO members will find helpful as they grapple with the many ethical issues that arise in daily practice in the field of oncology. Because these columns are intended to address the concerns of ASCO members, the Committee welcomes suggestions for future topics at vignettes@asco.org. Martin D. Abeloff, MD, Chair, Ethics Committee.
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 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 | 0.039 | 0.023 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".