Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the ethical issues involved in personalized medicine, focusing primarily on privacy, consent, and data sharing. First, the background and importance of the development of personalized medicine are introduced, followed by a detailed analysis of the ethical challenges in this field, including privacy, consent, and data sharing. Regarding consent issues, the article discusses the definition and requirements of informed consent, obstacles and challenges in the consent process, and future-oriented consent models. In terms of data sharing, it focuses on the benefits and risks of sharing data, anonymization and de-identification in shared data, data ownership and control, and ethical considerations for international data sharing. Finally, the importance of addressing ethical issues in personalized medicine is emphasized, and future research directions and suggestions are proposed. By comprehensively analyzing ethical issues in personalized medicine, this article aims to provoke deep thinking about medical ethics, promote the standardization and legitimacy of medical practice, and ensure the effective protection of patient rights and public interests.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".