Investigational Therapies and Patients’ Autonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing demand for novel therapies has raised new ethical dilemmas for society. Vigorous debates have been initiated, especially after the recent Right to Try Act in the US, which aims to facilitate access to new agents, even at an early stage of the investigation process. This article explores the concept of patient’s autonomy in accessing investigational treatments, and discusses the implications of autonomy for patients, researchers and regulatory authorities. We propose that, in cases of adequate understanding of the anticipated risks and benefits, society should accept patients’ autonomy in choosing to try new therapies, even in the absence of firm data. However, basic ethical principles should not be compromised, as the medical community and society as a whole retain the right to properly evaluate the accumulated experience from such cases. These thoughts may contribute to the ongoing discussions on ethical policies in clinical research.
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 | 0.063 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".