Ethical Preparedness and Performance of Gene Therapy Study Co-Ordinators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about study co-ordinators of gene therapy clinical trials. The purposes of this study were to: (1) describe characteristics of co-ordinators of gene therapy (transfer) clinical trials; (2) assess differences between nurse and non-nurse study co-ordinators; and (3) identify factors indicative of study co-ordinators' role preparation that could affect their role performance. This exploratory correlational study employed a convenience sample of 118 co-ordinators in the USA (55 participants; 47% response rate). The researcher created the Study Coordinator Role Preparedness and Performance Survey to assess factors or correlates of study co-ordinator performance. Analysis of variance was used to compare nurses and non-nurses, and men versus women on their perceived preparedness, perceived quality of orientation, and satisfaction with educational opportunities. The findings contribute to knowledge by identifying present inadequacies in the training of study co-ordinators and in recognizing the need for more effective provision of orientation and continuing education with respect to ethical issues, knowledge of genetic science, and potential research integrity challenges.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".