MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412407965 · doi:10.1089/bio.2024.0165

Development of a Multimedia Electronic Consent Platform for Biobanking and Research Utilizing Opinions from Children, Teens, and Adults

2025· article· en· W4412407965 on OpenAlexaff
Iryna Kayda, Ashton Ellis, Holly Longstaff, Élodie Portales-Casamar, Julie M. Robillard, Alice Virani, Ashley McKerrow, Michelle Dittrick, George Lei, Suzanne Vercauteren

Bibliographic record

VenueBiopreservation and Biobanking · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineProvincial Health Services AuthorityBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiobankBiorepositoryInformed consentMultimediaParental consentMedical educationComputer scienceMedicineAlternative medicineBioinformaticsPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Ethical research recruitment relies on effective informed consent. We sought feedback and acceptance from users regarding an interactive, multimedia, electronic consent (e-consent) platform for recruitment of research participants to the BC Children's Hospital BioBank (BCCHB). We aimed to enhance user experience when considering research participation and documenting consent decisions through the modality of an e-consent. STUDY DESIGN: A prototype e-consent was developed and end-user opinions regarding content, visuals, user satisfaction, and electronic consent/assent practices were obtained from children, teens, and adults via an online survey and focus groups. A finalized e-consent was submitted for research ethics board (REB) approval. RESULTS: All age groups rated the description of information, images, and formatting in the e-consent as highly favorable. Teens and adults preferred online (38% and 42%) rather than paper-based (17% and 16%) consent, while children expressed no preference. Majority of children (100%), teens (92%), and adults (98%) agreed or strongly agreed that they understood all the information given during the online consent process. No significant differences were found in survey responses between age groups. Adult and teen focus groups suggested improvements in formatting and addition of features to further clarify terms like "ongoing donation" and "privacy measures." All ages preferred the ability to complete the e-consent independently, with optional assistance from research staff. The e-consent received REB approval and was implemented for BCCHB recruitment. CONCLUSION: An e-consent was developed and its modality was successfully accepted by end-users from several age groups, including children and teens, for use in pediatric biobanking. This method may potentially improve the process of completing research consent, particularly with adolescents.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.412
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.119 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiopreservation and BiobankingSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207