Are Patients Comfortable Consenting to Clinical Anesthesia Research Trials on the Day of Surgery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Consent for clinical anesthesia research trials is often sought on the day of surgery when patients are most anxious and have little privacy or time for reflection. We conducted a retrospective survey of patients' perceptions and concerns regarding consent for clinical anesthesia trials on the day of surgery. Questionnaires were mailed to 175 patients who had participated in 1 of 6 negligible- or minimal-risk clinical anesthesia trials within the preceding year. Seventy-six patients responded (43%). Most patients (80%) reported that they understood the purpose of their trial, did not feel obligated (61%) or pressured (67%) to participate, and were satisfied (mean visual analog scale: 71 mm) with the recruitment and consent process on the day of surgery. Few patients (7%) believed that their well-being was put at risk because of their participation in the trial. IMPLICATIONS: This retrospective survey suggests that patient recruitment and consent for negligible- or minimal-risk clinical anesthesia research trials is appropriate when performed on the day of surgery.
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 | 0.041 | 0.226 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".