Pan-Canadian Study on Variations in Research Ethics Boards' Reviews of a Research Project Involving Placebo Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.124 | 0.293 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".