MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6942208106 · doi:10.14288/1.0398236

Clinician-researcher’s perspectives on clinical research during the COVID19 pandemic

2021· article· en· W6942208106 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical researchPandemicWaiverInformed consentObservational studyResearch ethicsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Research designConfidentialityAffect (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives The outcome of well-performed clinical research is essential for evidence-based patient management during pandemics. However, conducting clinical research amidst a pandemic requires researchers to balance clinical and research demands. We seek to understand the values, experiences, and beliefs of physicians working at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in order to inform clinical research planning. We aim to understand whether pandemic settings affect physician comfort with research practices, and how physician experiences shape their understanding of research in a pandemic setting. Methods A survey tool was adapted to evaluate familiarity and comfort with research during a pandemic. A cross-sectional, online questionnaire was distributed across Canadian research networks early in the COVID-19 outbreak. The survey was administered between March 11th and 17th, 2020, during a time of local transmission but prior to the surge of cases. We aimed to recruit into the survey physicians in infectious disease and critical care research networks across Canada. Results Of the 133 physician respondents, 131 (98%) considered it important to conduct clinical research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents were more accepting of adaptations to the research process in during a pandemic compared to in a non-pandemic setting, including conducting research with deferred consent (χ2 = 8.941, 95% CI: -0.264, -0.085, p = 0.003), using non-identifiable observational data with a waiver of consent with a median score of 97 out of 100 (IQR: 79.25–100) vs median 87 out of 100 (IQR: 63–79) (95% CI: -12.43, 0.054, p = 0.052). The majority felt that research quality is not compromised during pandemics. Conclusions Physicians consider it important to conduct research during a pandemic, highlighting the need to expedite research activities in pandemic settings. Respondents were more accepting of adaptations to the research process for research conducted during a pandemic, compared to that conducted in its absence of a pandemic.

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)0.199
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.252
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1990.252
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0250.041
Scholarly communication0.0230.010
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0110.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.237
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.210 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Collections→Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions→French-language works237,207→