Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify and discuss ethical aspects of study design issues in psychiatric research. METHOD: We conducted a literature review and conceptual analysis of study design in psychiatric research focusing on placebo, medication tapering and withdrawal (washout), and symptom provocation (challenge) designs. RESULTS: While advances in the care and treatment of persons with psychiatric disorders are crucial to the improved well-being of this stigmatized and often forgotten population, past abuses demonstrate the importance of the thoughtful application of ethical principles in the conduct of research. Some ethical issues have particular relevance to psychiatric research arising primarily from the specific vulnerabilities of those with mental illness and the risks posed by some research methodologies. Accordingly, sensitivity is required in the design of psychiatric research. CONCLUSION: Placebo, challenge, and washout study designs can present particular risks in the population of persons with mental illness. These issues are described and suggestions offered to promote the ethical design of psychiatric research.
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 | 0.573 | 0.605 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".