Inclusion of Adolescents in STI/HIV Biomedical Prevention Trials: Autonomy, Decision Making, and Parental Involvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents, despite their disproportionate burden of disease, often are excluded from sexually transmitted infection and HIV biomedical prevention clinical trials. The 3 principles of the Belmont Report (justice, respect for persons, and beneficence, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1979 ) can inform our understanding of the ethical imperative to include minors in these trials. Investigators and institutional review boards need to have an understanding of what constitutes no more than minimal risk, that is, what is part of adolescent well-child care. Although cognitive development extends into the young adult years, evidence suggests that in most situations research decision-making capacity of an older minor is similar to that of a young adult. Depending on the specifics of the study, parental involvement may range from parental consent while protecting confidentiality to adolescent self-consent with a waiver of parental consent. Regardless of the level of parental involvement, protection of adolescents enrolled in trials will require strategies that guard against the risk of accidental loss of confidentiality. We outline a number of ways in which pediatric psychologists can assist clinical trial investigators and institutional review boards to ethically recruit and enroll minors into biomedical prevention trials. Furthermore, a pediatric psychologist can contribute to needed research on adolescent decision making and parental involvement to develop more sophisticated approaches to involving minors in HIV and sexually transmitted infection biomedical 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 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 | 0.307 | 0.408 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".