MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2277688499

Ethical Issues of Genetic Information Banks

2010· article· en· W2277688499 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abdolhassan Kazemi, Feizollahi Nejat, Abbasi Mahmoud, Mehrzad Kiani

Bibliographic record

VenueFaṣlnāmah-i akhlāq-i pizishkī./Faṣlnāmah-i akhlāq-i pizishkī. · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiobankGovernment (linguistics)Meaning (existential)Quality (philosophy)PopulationDiseasePublic relationsEnvironmental healthPsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceBiologyGenetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biobanks are an essential and important tool of genetic epidemiology and screening. Biobanks cacould investigates the roles, effects and influences of genetic factors and their interaction with environmental factors such as nutrition, stress, etc (in a broad meaning) for the occurrence of behaviors, health conditions, diseases, and quality of life in human populations. Biobanks aims are to understand the influence and impact of genetics parameters on the development of behaviors, health conditions, diseases, and quality of life, their course and the clinical implications, with the final goal to improve prevention, diagnostics and therapy. The unexpected progress of genetics fields in the last two decades - with respect to the understanding of the meaning of genes for human health, as well as the availability of cost-effective high throughput methods in the lab and techniques, has opened massive opportunities to study genetic factors and their influence in human health condition. In addition, for establishment of a effective biobank access to large cases and samples of patients or from the population is needed. This can be realized via collaboration of several biobanks. Large biobanks with 500,000 or more participants are being established or planned in the UK, Japan, Iceland, Taiwan, Canada, Australia, Italia, Sweden and the US. However, in Germany only two smaller activities are ongoing, KORA-gen in the south and POPGEN in the north. Possibilities to reach larger numbers for Germany, based on existing cohorts or disease networks, are discussed between scientist and government. For the implementation and use of biobanks, stringent ethical, social and legal boundary circumstances have to be taken into account. The opinion of the German National Ethics Council on Biobanks for Research as well as the new advices of the Telematic Platform (TMF), which has been developed in close collaboration with the Data Protection Officers, improve transparency and legal security.

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)0.225
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.368
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
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 score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2250.368
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.016
Scholarly communication0.0130.009
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0300.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.006

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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaṣlnāmah-i akhlāq-i pizishkī./Faṣlnāmah-i akhlāq-i pizishkī.Same topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207