Patients' perception of the informed consent process for neurooncology clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The informed consent process is a cornerstone of modern medical research. This study was conducted to explore the process in the context of neurooncology clinical trials. Qualitative methodology and analysis were used on open-ended, face-to-face interviews conducted with 21 patients. Six comprehensive themes emerged: (1) general understanding of the objectives and purpose of clinical trials was good, (2) recall of risks was low, (3) patients did not believe that their care would be compromised by forgoing the clinical trial, (4) patients felt participation was voluntary and free of coercion, (5) patients would not have withdrawn from the trial in the event of complications, and (6) patients were satisfied with the informed consent process. Informed consent is a dynamic process; when appropriately executed, it can be a powerful safeguard protecting patient autonomy. If sufficient time is allowed to deliberate participation and ample opportunity is provided for information sharing and disclosure, researchers can be confident that participants are knowledgeable about the trial and aware of their rights.
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 | 0.201 | 0.376 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".