Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals suffering from severe disorders of consciousness (DOC) face a bleak prognosis and are susceptible to therapeutic neglect according to Fins. Because of the increasing occurrence of severe brain injury, some physicians and researchers take the study of DOC to be a moral imperative and perceive novel technologies, such as Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS), as offering potential therapeutic benefit. METHOD: This article examines the decisional process faced by proxy decision-makers for patients with severe DOC when confronted by novel treatments such as DBS. RESULTS: If there is awareness in the literature that surrogate consent is complicated by the contingencies of severe brain injury such as disability and the possibility of long-term care, surrogate consent is often equated with substituted judgement and taking the best interests of the patient into account. However, for surrogates of patients with severe DOC, advocacy becomes a central component of the surrogate's role as there is no established standard of care for these patients in the post-acute phase. If participation in research is offered, the surrogate may perceive research participation as a way of providing benefits such as stimulation and some rehabilitation services for the patient. CONCLUSION: Researchers need to be aware how the absence of a standard of care can shape surrogate choice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".