MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136728169 · doi:10.2196/medinform.3937

Balancing the Interests of Patient Data Protection and Medication Safety Monitoring in a Public-Private Partnership

2015· article· en· W2136728169 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nancy A Dreyer, Stella Blackburn, Valerie Hliva, Shahrul Mt‐Isa, Jonathan L. Richardson, Anna Jamry‐Dziurla, Alison Bourke, Rebecca Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStatens Serum InstitutUniwersytet Medyczny im. Karola Marcinkowskiego w PoznaniuAmgenEuropean CommissionH. Lundbeck A/SNewcastle UniversityRijksuniversiteit GroningenEuropean Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations
KeywordsMedicineGeneral partnershipPopulationHealth careData Protection Act 1998Public healthData collectionInternet privacyMedical emergencyFamily medicineBusinessPublic relationsNursingEnvironmental healthComputer securityPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obtaining data without the intervention of a health care provider represents an opportunity to expand understanding of the safety of medications used in difficult-to-study situations, like the first trimester of pregnancy when women may not present for medical care. While it is widely agreed that personal data, and in particular medical data, needs to be protected from unauthorized use, data protection requirements for population-based studies vary substantially by country. For public-private partnerships, the complexities are enhanced. The objective of this viewpoint paper is to illustrate the challenges related to data protection based on our experiences when performing relatively straightforward direct-to-patient noninterventional research via the Internet or telephone in four European countries. Pregnant women were invited to participate via the Internet or using an automated telephone response system in Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom. Information was sought on medications, other factors that may cause birth defects, and pregnancy outcome. Issues relating to legal controllership of data were most problematic; assuring compliance with data protection requirements took about two years. There were also inconsistencies in the willingness to accept nonwritten informed consent. Nonetheless, enrollment and data collection have been completed, and analysis is in progress. Using direct reporting from consumers to study the safety of medicinal products allows researchers to address a myriad of research questions relating to everyday clinical practice, including treatment heterogeneity in population subgroups not traditionally included in clinical trials, like pregnant women, children, and the elderly. Nonetheless, there are a variety of administrative barriers relating to data protection and informed consent, particularly within the structure of a public-private partnership.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.346
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.332
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3460.332
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.025
Scholarly communication0.0290.031
Open science0.0050.041
Research integrity0.0130.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.523
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.019 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207