MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157594633 · doi:10.1136/jme.2006.017376

The need for additional safeguards in the informed consent process in schizophrenia research

2007· article· en· W2157594633 on OpenAlexafffund
Kelly K. Anderson, Som D. Mukherjee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Ethics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsInformed consentVoluntarism (philosophy)Schizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Process (computing)PopulationPsychologyPsychiatryMedicineAlternative medicineComputer scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of obtaining informed consent to participate in a clinical study presents many challenges for research conducted in a population of patients with schizophrenia. Morally valid, informed consent must include information sharing, decisional capacity, and capacity for voluntarism. This paper examines the unique features of schizophrenia that may threaten each of these elements of informed consent, and it proposes additional safeguards in the process of gaining informed consent from individuals with schizophrenia in order to maximise the decision-making potential of this patient population.

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)0.546
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.582
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5460.582
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.064
Scholarly communication0.0120.029
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0300.042
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.300
GPT teacher head0.604
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations25
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EthicsSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207