Ethics and Uncertainty: Considerations for the Design and Review of Translational Trials Involving Stem Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Once we set aside issues related to the ontological status of the human embryo, many of the ethical issues presented by translational stem cell trials resemble those presented by other areas of clinical research. Does the trial present a favorable balance of risks and benefits? Will the selection of subjects be fair? Will the consent of participants be informed and voluntary? The familiarity of these questions, however, belies difficulties faced by researchers and regulators involved in the design and review of translational stem cell trials. In this context, issues are problematized by high degrees of uncertainty concerning the nature and probability of study risks, the absence of accepted normative standards or frameworks for risk assessment, and the limited expertise concerning stem cell science on most institutional review committees.
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 | 0.230 | 0.221 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".