MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124301026

Paediatric MRI Research Ethics: The Priority Issues

2013· article· en· W3124301026 on OpenAlexaff
Nuala Kenny, Jocelyn Downie, Jennifer Marshall, Michael Hadskis

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaNational Research Council Institute for BiodiagnosticsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidentialityResearch ethicsEthical issuesInformed consentMedical lawMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineEngineering ethicsNeuroimagingNeuroethicsPsychologyPsychiatryComputer scienceAlternative medicinePathologyRadiologyComputer security
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we first briefly describe neuroimaging technology our reasons for studying magnetic resonance imaging MRI technology and then provide a discussion of what we have identified as priority issues for paediatric MRI research We examine the issues of respectful involvement of children in the consent process as well as privacy and confidentiality for this group of MRI research participants In addition we explore the implications of unexpected findings for paediatric MRI research participants Finally we explore the ethical issues concerning advances in functional MRI This paper aims to provide a clear description of priority paediatric MRI research ethics issues to make some preliminary recommendations regarding next steps

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.285
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.356
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2850.356
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.048
Scholarly communication0.0190.019
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0250.043
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.295
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207