MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564719803 · doi:10.1038/gim.2016.189

Public variant databases: liability?

2016· article· en· W2564719803 on OpenAlexafffund
Adrian Thorogood, Robert Cook‐Deegan, Bartha Maria Knoppers

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics in Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of CanadaGenome Canada
KeywordsData sharingContext (archaeology)LiabilityHarmInterpretation (philosophy)Corporate governanceBusinessMedicineDatabasePolitical scienceComputer scienceLawAlternative medicineBiologyAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public variant databases support the curation, clinical interpretation, and sharing of genomic data, thus reducing harmful errors or delays in diagnosis. As variant databases are increasingly relied on in the clinical context, there is concern that negligent variant interpretation will harm patients and attract liability. This article explores the evolving legal duties of laboratories, public variant databases, and physicians in clinical genomics and recommends a governance framework for databases to promote responsible data sharing.Genet Med advance online publication 15 December 2016.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.700
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.116 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations32
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetics in MedicineSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207