Compelled Disclosure of Confidential Information in Patient Safety Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The protection of confidential research data is of key importance to clinical patient safety research. A review of selected Canadian and American case law indicates that although the relationship between researcher and participant has not been recognized as privileged, court-ordered disclosure of confidential research information seems to be a rare occurrence. In this review, we examine how confidentiality issues are presented in informed consent form templates and in relevant research ethics policies. We find an agreement among research policy documents that all information gathered should be treated as confidential, unless otherwise required by law. Confidentiality provisions in informed consent forms reflect the reality that in some cases, the law can compel disclosure of confidential data. There is, therefore, a potential tension between the law and existing research ethics policy. It has been suggested that researchers have an ethical and possibly legal duty to actively resist disclosure requests. We conclude that it is reasonable for researchers to disclose, as part of the informed consent process, how rare successful disclosure demands are and that steps will be taken to oppose such demands.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".