What's happening in <i>Neurology</i> <sup>®</sup> <i>Clinical Practice</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reflections on translation: Views of participants in a multisite Canadian CCSVI clinical trial Background We sought to characterize the perspectives of participants in Canada's phase I/II chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) clinical trial prior to and after the disclosure of trial results.Methods This was a researcher-administered survey of individuals who participated in Canada's CCSVI trial (Clincialtrials.gov,NCT01864941) about their (1) motivations for participating, (2) understanding of the trial process, and (3) perspectives on the social value of the trial.Results A total of 63 participants completed the survey.Participants were motivated to participate by altruism (mean score = 4.56 out of 5) and a desire to access the intervention in Canada (mean score = 3.63 out of 5).Many participants expected medical benefits, such as partial disease reversal (mean score = 3.32 out of 5).Participants felt strongly that the crossover trial design promoted fairness (mean score = 4.65 out of 5).Participants' familiarity with the CCSVI controversy increased significantly after the results were revealed (p = 0.0001).Despite negative trial results, participants still felt that the trial was an appropriate use of tax dollars (mean score = 4.68 out of 5).Many (38%) upheld the belief that further CCSVI research is necessary (responses of 4 out of 5 or higher).Conclusions There is a strong movement in science today to ensure that research agendas reflect the perspectives of multiple stakeholders, including research participants.While previous work suggests that negative findings adversely affect trust in science, the perspectives of participants in this study demonstrate that good trial design and resilience can prevail over expected tensions. NPub.org/NCP/9115aNeuroimaging abnormalities in patients with Cowden syndrome: Retrospective single-center study NPub.
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 | 0.042 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".