The ethics of using innovative therapies in the care of children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An innovative therapy is a newly introduced or modified therapy with unproven effect or side effect, and is undertaken in the best interest of the patient. The ethical use of innovative therapies has been controversial. In paediatrics, the conflict between withholding potential rescue therapy and protecting a vulnerable population's rights and welfare must be considered. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that this innovation is conducted within an ethical framework that recognizes that the therapy is not standard. This should integrate the patient's autonomy, the role of the institution, professional consensus and innovation evaluation. Innovative therapy represents a justifiable departure from inferior conventional therapy in the absence of an accepted standard therapy. Innovation shares with research its experimental nature, but differs from research in its goal and context that exempts innovative therapy from direct governance by research ethics board. Innovative therapy is part of the continuum of hypothesis generation in the advancement of medical knowledge, and its evaluation is a transforming point for clinical 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 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 | 0.091 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".