MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071543298 · doi:10.1155/2013/439145

Incidental Findings in Neuroimaging: Ethical and Medicolegal Considerations

2012· review· en· W2071543298 on OpenAlexaff
Lawrence Leung

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroscience Journal · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroimagingHarmTortFiduciaryNeuroethicsEngineering ethicsScope (computer science)DamagesPsychologyLiabilityProtocol (science)DutyPolitical scienceLawMedicineSocial psychologyPsychiatryComputer scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid advances in neurosciences in the last three decades, there has been an exponential increase in the use of neuroimaging both in basic sciences and clinical research involving human subjects. During routine neuroimaging, incidental findings that are not part of the protocol or scope of research agenda can occur and they often pose a challenge as to how they should be handled to abide by the medicolegal principles of research ethics. This paper reviews the issue from various ethical (do no harm, general duty to rescue, and mutual benefits and owing) and medicolegal perspectives (legal liability, fiduciary duties, Law of Tort, and Law of Contract) with a suggested protocol of approach.

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.023
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 head0.678
GPT teacher head0.629
Teacher spread0.050 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroscience JournalSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207