MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141843889 · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3001516

Comment on “Multidimensional Results Reporting to Participants in Genomic Studies: Getting It Right”

2011· letter· en· W2141843889 on OpenAlexaff
Ebony Bookman, Aleisha A. Langehorne, John H. Eckfeldt, Kathleen Cranley Glass, Gail P. Jarvik, Michael J. Klag, Greg Koski, Arno G. Motulsky, Benjamin S. Wilfond, Teri A. Manolio, Richard R. Fabsitz, Russell V. Luepker

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Translational Medicine · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)MedicineFamily medicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bookman et al. write to correct the impression given in the Commentary by Kohane and Taylor that the recommendations of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Working Group "Reporting Genetic Results in Research Studies" included advice to return genetic information to research subjects only in cases where there is a proven or preventative intervention for the identified disorder. In fact, the report does recommend that genetic information be returned to subjects when there is an intervention available, but it does not recommend against giving this kind of information to subjects if there is no available intervention.

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 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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.747
GPT teacher head0.613
Teacher spread0.133 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience Translational MedicineSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207