MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W294040267

Pan-Canadian Study on Variations in Research Ethics Boards' Reviews of a Research Project Involving Placebo Use

2006· article· en· W294040267 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Johane Patenaude, Julien Cabanac, Johane de Champlain

Bibliographic record

VenueDigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmResearch ethicsClinical trialMedicinePlaceboPopulationClinical researchAlternative medicineFamily medicinePolitical scienceLawPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction In Canada, since 1996, researchers have abided by ethical norms (2) intended protect research subjects without unduly hindering the functioning of research projects. To this end, research ethics boards [REBs] have been entrusted with the responsibility for overseeing the protection of research subjects under the terms of recognized norms, including the Tri-Council Policy Statement [TCPS]. (3) One of the objectives of TCPS policy was to harmonize the ethics review process. The Agencies expect that REBs will benefit from common procedures within a shared ethical framework. (4) Moreover, since 1997, reviewing clinical trials, REBs have also been able turn the Good Clinical Practice [GCP] guidelines. (5) Since these norms were implemented, the need has emerged review, modify, and harmonize them. In the fall of 2001, Health Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research [CIHR] set up the National Placebo Working Committee to help determine the appropriate use of placebos in clinical trials in Canada. (6) One of this group's objectives was harmonize Good Clinical Practice (E10) (7) [GCP (E10)] with the TCPS, (8) in particular as it related the diversity of terms employed regarding placebo use in clinical trials. GCP (E10) allows for the possibility of offering a placebo in these situations: 2.1.3 Ethical Issues.... In cases where an available treatment is known prevent serious harm, such as death or irreversible morbidity in the study population, it is generally inappropriate use a placebo control. There are occasional exceptions, however, such as cases in which standard therapy has toxicity so severe that many patients have refused receive it. In other situations, there is no serious harm, it is generally considered ethical ask patients participate in a placebo-controlled trial, even if they may experience discomfort as a result, provided the setting is noncoercive and patients are fully informed about available therapies and the consequences of delaying treatment. (9) Like GCP (E10), article 7.4 of the TCPS forbids the use of a placebo when standard therapies or interventions are available for a particular patient population. However, exceptions this prohibition are identified: Consistent with clinical equipoise, a placebo may be used as the control treatment in a clinical trial in the following circumstances: (a) There is no standard treatment; (b) Standard therapy has been shown be no better than placebo; (c) Evidence has arisen creating substantial doubt regarding the net therapeutic advantage of standard therapy; (d) Effective treatment is not available patients due cost constraints or short supply (this may only be applied background conditions of justice prevail within the health care system in question; for example, a placebo-controlled trial is not permissible effective but costly treatment is made available the rich but remains unavailable the poor or uninsured.); (e) In a population of patients who are refractory standard treatment and for whom no standard second-line treatment exists; (f) Testing add-on treatment standard therapy all subjects in the trial receive all treatments that would normally be prescribed; or (g) Patients have provided an informed refusal of standard therapy for a minor condition for which patients commonly refuse treatment and withholding such therapy will not lead undue suffering or the possibility of irreversible harm of any magnitude. (10) REBs' ethical review of the acceptability of placebo use is based on two factors: their familiarity with the principal sets of norms for Canada, namely the TCPS and GCP (E10), and how they interpret these norms. At present, the great divergences among REBs' decisions result in the approval in some institutions of research projects for clinical trials involving placebo use that are rejected by others. …

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.659
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.122 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library)Same topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207