Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Informed consent, as one of the first principles of medical law, (1) requires physicians to obtain a patient's informed consent before undertaking medical treatment. (2) In Canada, courts have established comprehensive rules for the application of the principle of informed consent through sophisticated analyses in cases such as Hopp v. Lepp (3) and particularly in Reibl v. Hughes. (4) In China, (5) informed consent was not asserted within Chinese laws until the 1980s. Although there is no legislation specifically explaining the principle of informed consent, its requirement has been embodied in a series of legal documents. For example, Article 40 of the 1982 Regulations on Work (6) and Article 33 of the 1994 Managerial Regulations of Institutions (7) require physicians to gain consent from their patients before providing medical treatments. Article 26 of the 1998 Law on Practitioners (8) and Article 11 of the 2002 Regulations on Handling Accidents (9) require that physicians should inform their patients about planned treatments. In 2009, the National People's Congress promulgated the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China. (10) Chapter 7 of the Tort Law regulates the liability of medical malpractice. It explicitly states that medical must explain the diagnosis and relevant medical measures to their patients. Where any medical member fails to fulfill the duties of informed consent and causes harm to a patient, the medical institution shall assume liability for compensation. In clinical practice, the last decade in China has witnessed patients' growing awareness of health care rights protection. (11) Doctors and patients have gradually begun to understand the principle of informed consent. A 2009 survey indicated that doctors and patients were relatively clear about the content of informed consent, especially that patients have the right to know about their illnesses, relevant medical measures, risks and effects of medical measures, and expense of diagnoses and treatments. (12) On the other hand, the survey also demonstrated that doctors and patients did not fully understand the principle of informed consent. For instance, they knew very little about a patient's right to choose and deny medical measures and a patient's right to choose their health care providers. (13) Also, most doctors and patients believed that both patients and their relatives give informed consent. (14) The sensational Xiao Zhijun case in 2007 (15) revealed misunderstandings about informed consent in practice. The following sections of this paper explore problems with the relevant Chinese laws and regulations and suggest improvements to provide clearer guidelines for informed consent in China. It examines four aspects of China's current informed consent protocols. They include who shall inform, who shall be informed, what they shall be informed about, and exceptions to disclosure. Key Consent Issues (1) Who shall inform? In China, according to Article 55 of the 2009 Tort Law (16) and Article 26 of the 1998 Law on Practitioners, (17) during diagnosis and treatment, medical are responsible for informing patients about their condition, treatment measures, medical risks and other related matters. (18) Medical staff mainly refers to doctors and, in China, three or four doctors of different levels take charge of one patient in a department. personnel are divided into four types, namely, resident, attending, associate chief physician and chief physician. (19) Generally, a more senior doctor supervises a lower level doctor in a department. The residents are the primary level medical and they are the doctors, in most medical institutes, who directly deal with patients. (20) This system was designed to achieve a better quality of health care and to protect a patient's right to make decisions. Residents are the medical members who most often carry out the duty to inform a patient. …
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.007 |
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".