How WHO Solidarity Plus trial participants in countries on four continents are informed in writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It is unknown if changes have been made to the original participant's information sheet/informed consent form (PIS/ICF) provided by the WHO Solidarity Plus team when it was transferred to participating countries. Methods: National principal investigators from 30 countries were asked if the original PIS/ICF was edited in their countries and, if so, to share with us the one used to recruit participants. We assessed whether the 25 different elements of information from the good clinical practice guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki were present in, deficiently described, or absent from the PIS/ICFs. Results: Nineteen national principal investigators responded: eight (Argentina, Brazil, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iran, Lebanon, Lithuania, and Malaysia) stated that no edits were introduced to the original PIS/ICF; eight (Canada, Colombia, Philippines, India, Ireland, Pakistan, Portugal, and Switzerland) added some elements of information in the national PIS/ICF; and three (Italy, Peru, and Spain) reported not participating in the trial. None of the elements included in the original PIS/ICF were omitted from the edited PIS/IFC. Six elements of information were omitted and five deficiently described in the original PIS/ICF. The number of elements omitted from the edited PIS/ICFs varied (range = 2-5). Nine PIS/ICFs incompletely described or omitted the informing of study participants about the study results, while five deficiently described or omitted the anticipated expenses for trial participation. Information concerning whom to contact for more information or in case of injury was deficient in six PIS/ICFs. Unlike the original PIS/ICF, all edited PIS/ICFs informed participants about the existence of compensation or treatment for any injury related to the trial. Conclusions: WHO should consider adding three of the omitted elements in PIS/ICFs of future multinational similar trials.
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 | 0.361 | 0.594 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.021 |
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".