Proper Consent for Clinical Anesthesia Research May Be Difficult to Obtain on the Day of Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Response: We thank Dr. Sosis for his interest and comments. The results of our study clearly indicate that the majority of patients were comfortable with the informed consent process, and we maintain our conclusion that it is appropriate to obtain informed consent for negligible or minimal risk clinical anesthesia trials on the same day as surgery. Although informed consent can be obtained prior to the day of surgery, Treschan et al. (1) demonstrated that 14% of consenting patients did not understand painful risks involved despite the consent process occurring on the day before surgery. Earlier recruitment may not, therefore, translate into better understanding. However, as we indicated in our study, further prospective research is needed to more accurately determine concerns that may arise as a result of obtaining consent on the same day as surgery. In addition, we need to identify better methods of finding and educating those patients who feel less comfortable but still feel compelled to take part in a study. Colin J. L McCartney, MBChB, FRCA Richard Brull, MD, FRCPC Vincent Chan, MD, FRCPC Frances Chung, MB, FRCPC Department of Anesthesia Toronto Western Hospital Toronto, Canada
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 | 0.081 | 0.391 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.010 |
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".