MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309366118 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.221500

Sharing genomic data for health research: institutional trust and trustworthiness, and informed consent

2022· letter· en· W4309366118 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mackenzie Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsTrustworthinessInformed consentResearch ethicsComputer scienceData sharingGenetic dataBiobankData collectionData scienceKey (lock)Internet privacyMedicineBioinformaticsWorld Wide WebAlternative medicineBiologyPsychiatryPathologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[See related article at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.212063][1] KEY POINTS Recent years have seen a dramatic increase in the collection, storage and curation of human genomic data for biomedical research. These data sets hold great promise for research into the genetic basis of disease, and

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)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.278
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.278
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.017
Scholarly communication0.0090.015
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0610.060
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.013

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 head0.620
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.056 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207