Parental views on tissue banking in pediatric oncology patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Research using banked tissue is key to advancing risk-stratification and treatment of children with cancer. Knowledge of parental attitudes to ethical issues arising in tissue banking is very limited but essential in obtaining respectful consent. METHODS: One hundred parents of consecutively diagnosed children with cancer were offered a validated 34-item questionnaire. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 54) included 10 of 16 parents of deceased children. The majority (89%; n = 48) would agree to have tissue sent anywhere in the world but prefer pediatric aims (69%). Most (98%; n = 53) would permit genetic research, if it might improve the child's health, and 76% (n = 41) would permit it, even if no impact was anticipated. A minority (41%) would not allow painful, strictly research procedures, while 15% would regardless of the child's dissent. Just over half (54%; n = 29) wish to renew consent if stored tissue is used for another purpose. Most (98%) believe their child should confirm consent by the age of majority, but only 71% believe the mature child should be able to withdraw consent. A minority (n = 40; 74%) claim few or no rights to research profits; 83% believe these should be used to fund childhood cancer research. CONCLUSIONS: Parents are very supportive of tissue research, including genetic research. A majority of parents would prefer restricting research to pediatric conditions, and to be informed of results, even if of uncertain significance. These findings may assist Institutional Review Boards in assessing parentally perceived risks of research, and researchers in providing consent elements that support parents and adolescents in making fully informed choices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".