Ethical Issues in Canadian Gastroenterology: Resluts of a Survey of Canadian Gastroenterology Trainees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Specialty-specific bioethical education is a mandated component of gastroenterology training programs in Canada, but no gastroenterology-specific bioethical curriculum is available. PURPOSE: To assess the relative importance of a variety of bioethical issues to the practice of gastroenterology. METHOD: A convenience sample of Canadian gastroenterology residents and staff was surveyed at a national meeting for Canadian gastroenterology trainees. They were asked to indicate their opinions of the relative importance of 24 different bioethical issues in their practice of gastroenterology. RESULTS: Respondents made distinctions in the relevance of different bioethical issues to the practice of gastroenterology and there was substantial concordance in the rankings indicated by residents and staff. Truth telling, consent and the capacity to give consent, and consent with regard to specific endoscopic procedures were ranked by both residents and staff as most important to their practice of gastroenterology. In contrast, the issue of euthanasia and assisted suicide was ranked near the bottom of the list by both residents and staff. The results differ in some respects from the key ethical questions identified by opinion leaders in gastroenterology. INTERPRETATION: Gastroenterology residents and staff identify some topics as much more relevant than others to the practice of gastroenterology. It is proposed that this can provide a framework for developing a gastroenterology-specific bioethical curriculum, and that there is an important opportunity for developing a joint program through collaboration among gastroenterology training programs across Canada.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".