MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Core Safeguards for Clinical Research with Adults Who Are Unable To Consent

2001· article· en· W2156701167 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dave Wendler, K. Sam Prasad

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBioethicsInformed consentCommissionFamily medicineCore (optical fiber)Alternative medicineLawPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Bioethics Advisory Commission has proposed new safeguards for clinical research with adults who are unable to consent. Three other major U.S. groups have also proposed additional safeguards for this population, and existing Canadian and European guidelines already include such safeguards. While these six guidelines agree on some safeguards, they disagree on others. To allow important research to proceed while protecting adults who are unable to consent, it will be crucial to resolve these differences. This paper uses a side-by-side comparison of these six guidelines to highlight their major points of consensus, analyze their significant differences, and distill six core safeguards.

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)0.259
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.332
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2590.332
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.021
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0040.012
Research integrity0.0130.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.903
GPT teacher head0.729
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations101
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207