Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. To reveal the attitudes of medical doctors and their awareness on clinical research ethics in India and Lithuania. Methods: A cross sectional survey was conducted simultaneously major hospitals in India and Lithuania. Overall, 180 medical doctors (97 from India, 83 from Lithuania) were interviewed anonymously (N=180) by using the convenience sampling method. The response rate was 60 %. The originally elaborated questionnaire was employed. The descriptive and factor staitistical analysis elaborated, the coreelation between variables evaluated by (the correlation between variables measured by χ2, significance evaluated when p<0.05. Results. It was revealed that almost all of Indian and only a quarter of Lithuanian respondents were critical about the approach that ethics are equally important as scientific research. It was revealed that Indian respondents tend more to disagree that philosophers should not dictate what is ethical and what is not while almost half of the Lithuanians agreed. The significant differences comparing respondents by the country were also determined by comparing their ethical awareness of research: 83.5% Indians and 64% of Lithuanians were aware that research participants do not have to participate in all procedures of clinical trials after they have given consent. More Indians than Lithuanians disagreed to the statement that participation of disadvantaged people in clinical trials is a good opportunity to get new treatment options. While comparing the level of awareness of Lithuanian and Indians in clinical rearch ethics, we found that the mean average awareness score of Indian respondents was 36.53 (SD= 1.52) out of maximum of 45 and it was higher as compared to Lithuanian respondents’ mean average awareness score of 31.86 (SD=3.46). The level of awareness increase with increase in clinical experience of respondents and there was improvement in thinking that science is equally important as ethics. The age was important factor for the enhancement of level of awareness (0.44) and less critical attitudes that science is more important than ethics - 0.50 meaning that the increasing level of awareness depends on the level of increased age and experience. Conclusions. The attitudes of medical doctors towards ethical research in clinical trials were found to be mostly depended on the country. Lithuanian doctors are more inclined to focus on the scientific research and progress of clinical trials, Indian doctors tend to take more account of ethical research ethics. The comparison of perceptions and awareness of medical doctors about research ethics in Lithuania and India revealed that Indian medical doctors are more likely to comply to ethical requirements in clinical research compared to Lithuanian medical doctors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".