MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2299090476 · doi:10.1093/asj/sjv263

Performing Ethical Research as a Plastic Surgeon in Private Practice: The Institutional Review Board

2016· editorial· en· W2299090476 on OpenAlexaffabout
Giancarlo McEvenue, Stefan O.P. Hofer, Frank Lista, Jamil Ahmad

Bibliographic record

VenueAesthetic Surgery Journal · 2016
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInstitutional review boardPrivate practicePlastic surgeryMEDLINEGeneral surgeryFamily medicineSurgeryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plastic surgery as a specialty has embraced evidence-based medicine.1,2 With innovation at their core, plastic surgeons are striving to increase the levels of evidence in their specialty. This paradigm shift to evidence-based medicine has the potential to improve quality of care and patient safety in areas traditionally lacking evidence such as aesthetic surgery. Aesthetic surgery however is often performed in nontraditional settings for research such as private offices and ambulatory surgery centers independent of larger institutions. Many jurisdictions have medical professional society as well as healthcare government regulated oversight and regulations to safeguard patient safety and maintain standards of clinical care in such independent healthcare facilities. However, no readily identifiable systems to safeguard ethical conduct of research in these same facilities is generally present. Regardless of the location, all human research must be reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to study initiation. Unfortunately, private facilities typically do not have easy access to an IRB, making approval and oversight difficult to obtain. Obtaining an IRB for plastic surgeons in private practice is often a convoluted process and creates an obstacle in producing research and, in turn, improving the standards of care in aesthetic surgery. Several options exist for ethics board approval after determining whether the study requires it. This article will outline the function of an IRB, when one is required, and the IRB options that are available. In doing so, we hope to clarify some of the issues surrounding the IRB for plastic surgeons in private practice. An IRB, also known in Canada as a Research Ethics Board (REB), is a committee charged with approving, monitoring, and reviewing biomedical research involving human subjects.3 An IRB's goal is to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. Researchers submit their study protocol and … Corresponding Author: Dr Jamil Ahmad, The Plastic Surgery Clinic, 1421 Hurontario Street, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5G 3H5. E-mail: drahmad{at}theplasticsurgeryclinic.com

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.368 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAesthetic Surgery JournalSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207