MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281290631 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.122.038760

Ethical Justification for Deferral of Consent in the AcT Trial for Acute Ischemic Stroke

2022· review· en· W4281290631 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hannah Faris, Brian Dewar, Dar Dowlatshahi, Alnar Ramji, Carol Kenney, Stacey Page, Brian Buck, Michael D. Hill, Shelagh B. Coutts, Mohammed Almekhlafi, Tolulope T. Sajobi, Nishita Singh, Arshia Sehgal, Richard H. Swartz, Bijoy K. Menon, Michel Shamy

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Alberta HospitalConference Board of CanadaFoothills Medical CentreOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeferralMedicineTenecteplaseInformed consentStroke (engine)Ischemic strokeIntensive care medicineAlternative medicineIschemiaCardiologyThrombolysisMyocardial infarctionAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The AcT trial (Alteplase Compared to Tenecteplase) compares alteplase or tenecteplase for patients with acute ischemic stroke. All eligible patients are enrolled by deferral of consent. Although the use of deferral of consent in the AcT trial meets the requirements of Canadian policy, we sought to provide a more explicit and rigorous approach to the justification of deferral of consent organized around 3 questions. Ultimately, the approach we outline here could become the foundation for a general justification for deferral of consent.

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)0.296
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.481
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2960.481
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0150.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.766
GPT teacher head0.662
Teacher spread0.104 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207