Retrait de consentement et chirurgie éveillée : illustration et enjeux éthiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ Contexte Le développement au cours des deniers années des interventions neurochirurgicales sous anesthésie locale, en particulier dans le champ neuro-oncologique, rend possible la question d’une éventuelle révocation per opératoire du consentement du patient à la procédure chirurgicale. Observation Les auteurs décrivent la révocation de son consentement par un patient au cours de l’exérèse chirurgicale d’un gliome de bas grade fronto-temporo-insulaire droit. Discussion Les aspects spécifiques aux conditions de révocation du consentement dans le contexte particulier de la chirurgie sous anesthésie locale sont discutés. La possibilité d’un pacte d’Ulysse est proposée et discutée. Conclusions Les interventions chirurgicales en condition éveillée créent un contexte particulier en ce qu’une révocation du consentement per opératoire devient possible. Dans ces conditions, l’information préopératoire pourrait aussi aborder avec le malade la question de la conduite à tenir au cas où il serait amené à solliciter un retrait de consentement lors de son réveil per opératoire.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".