MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139118963 · doi:10.1177/1740774511414444

Altruism among participants in cancer clinical trials

2011· article· en· W2139118963 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Trials · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialMedicineAltruism (biology)CancerPsychologyClinical psychologySocial psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients' motivations for participation in cancer clinical trials are incompletely understood. Even less is known about the factors that influence participants' motivations for enrolling in trials. PURPOSE: We studied the reasons why adult patients and parents of pediatric patients agree to participate in cancer trials. We focused on the role of altruism across all phases of trial. METHODS: We surveyed adult patients and parents of pediatric patients participating in phase I, II, or III cancer clinical trials. We asked respondents why they agreed to enroll, and examined correlates of altruistic motivation using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Among 205 adults and 48 parents of children participating in cancer trials, 47% reported that altruistic motivations were 'very important' to their decisions to enroll. In multivariate analysis with phase III trial participants as the reference group, phase I trial participants least often identified altruism as a 'very important' motivation for enrolling (phase I OR 0.4, 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.2-0.8; phase II OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.5, overall P = 0.017). Thirty-three respondents (13%) reported being motivated primarily by altruism. In multivariate analysis, participants with poor prognoses-defined as an expected 5-year disease-free survival of ≤ 10%-reported altruism as their primary motivation less often than those with better prognoses (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.5, P = 0.001). Altruistic motivations did not differ between adult patients and parents of pediatric participants. LIMITATIONS: The data are derived from related academic medical centers in one city, and the study sample reflects limited sociodemographic diversity, thereby limiting generalizability to other settings. CONCLUSIONS: Although cancer trial participants commonly report that altruism contributed to their decision to enroll, it is rarely their primary motivation for study participation. Participants in early phase trials and those with poor prognoses are least often motivated by altruism.

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.

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)0.562
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.890
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5620.890
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.988
GPT teacher head0.814
Teacher spread0.174 · 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