MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405313660 · doi:10.7202/1114971ar

Trial-centrism in the Declaration of Helsinki: A Challenge for Post-Study Access and Preventing Data Colonialism in AI-Driven Health Research

2024· article· en· W4405313660 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hazar Haidar, Ehsan Shamsi Gooshki

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Bioethics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeclarationDeclaration of HelsinkiColonialismLow and middle income countriesGlobal healthPolitical sciencePublic relationsData scienceOperations researchComputer scienceMedicineDeveloping countryEconomic growthAlternative medicineLawEngineeringEconomicsHealth careInformed consent

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This letter proposes extending the post-trial provisions of the updated Declaration of Helsinki beyond pharmaceutical drugs to include AI tools, particularly those developed using data from low- and middle-income countries. Such an extension would help prevent data colonialism and ensure more equitable access to these tools, fostering fairness in global health research.

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)0.519
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.560
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5190.560
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.040
Scholarly communication0.0180.013
Open science0.0100.010
Research integrity0.0410.069
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.586
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.031 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BioethicsSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207