A survey of Canadian medical student attitudes towards the ethics of pediatric clinical trials: are they different from Canadian and British health care professionals?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to ethical concerns and constraints inherent to research in children, the conduct of clinical trials in children has often been difficult. The views of medical professionals and trainees towards conducting clinical trials in children have been largely unexplored and are potentially important towards working to increase the number of appropriate trials conducted in children. OBJECTIVE: To explore the views of Canadian medical school trainees towards paediatric clinical trials and to compare these views with that of an earlier pilot study conducted amongst Canadian and British health care professionals. METHODS: Participants were given a questionnaire which consisted of direct questions as well as scenarios with ethical dilemmas. Responders were asked to state whether they would enter children in the trial documented in the scenario and to justify their reasons. RESULTS: 89 questionnaires were collected (74% response rate). 42% had formal teaching regarding paediatric ethical dilemmas but only 2% had formal teaching on pharmaceutical testing in children. The students were divided on whether children should only participate in trials where they receive direct benefit. Most students (85%; 95% CI: 77% to 91%) were comfortable with non-inferiority trials even with post-hoc consent. Only a third (33%; 95% CI: 24% to 43%) agreed with the use of placebo in an analgesia trial. CONCLUSION: Teaching on the ethics of paediatric clinical trials still appears to be lacking amongst medical trainees. However, there does seem to be increased willingness on the part of trainees compared to practicing medical professionals in enrolling children in clinical trials.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".