Ethical Issues for Control-Arm Patients After Revelation of Benefits of Experimental Therapy: A Framework Modeled in Neuroblastoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2009, the Children's Oncology Group (COG) phase III randomized controlled trial, ANBL0032, found that adding immunotherapy (Ch14.18) to standard therapy significantly improved outcomes in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma when administered within 110 days after autologous stem-cell transplantation (SCT). After careful deliberation and consultation, the COG Neuroblastoma Committee decided to offer Ch14.18 to prior trial participants who had been randomly assigned to the control arm (no immunotherapy), regardless of the time that had elapsed since SCT. This decision occurred in the context of a limited supply of Ch14.18 and no data regarding its role when administered beyond 110 days. In this article, we analyze the numerous ethical challenges highlighted by the ANBL0032 trial, including the limits of researchers' reciprocity-based obligations to study participants, post-trial access to beneficial therapies, and the balance between scientific knowledge and parental hope. These deliberations may be useful to other researchers when considering their ethical obligations to control-arm participants in the wake of a positive randomized trial.
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 | 0.410 | 0.382 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| 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".