Diagnosis Unreliability of ChatGPT for Journal Evaluation.

Purpose: Academic and other researchers have limited tools with which to address the current proliferation of predatory and hijacked journals. These journals can have negative effects on science, research funding, and the dissemination of information. As most predatory and hijacked journals are not error free, this study used ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) technology tool, to conduct an evaluation of journal quality. Methods: Predatory and hijacked journals were analyzed for reliability using ChatGPT, and the reliability of result have been discussed. Results: It shows that ChatGPT is an unreliable tool for journal quality evaluation for both hijacked and predatory journals. Conclusion: To show how to address this gap, an early trial version of Journal Checker Chatbot has been developed and is discussed as an alternative chatbot that can assist researchers in detecting hijacked journals.

All you Need is Trust? Public Perspectives on Consenting to Participate in Genomic Research in the Sri Lankan District of Colombo.

Engagement with genomic medicine and research has increased globally during the past few decades, including rapid developments in Sri Lanka. Genomic research is carried out in Sri Lanka on a variety of scales and with different aims and perspectives. However, there are concerns about participants' understanding of genomic research, including the validity of informed consent. This article reports a qualitative study aiming to explore the understanding, knowledge, and attitudes of the Sri Lankan public towards genomic medicine and to inform the development of an effective and appropriate process for informed consent in that setting. Purposive sampling was employed. Participants were recruited from a sub-group of the public in Colombo, Sri Lanka who had either consented or refused to donate genetic material for a biobank. Data were collected using face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Interview data were transcribed verbatim and translated into English. Conventional content analysis was used. The analysis developed three key themes: a) 'Scientific literacy' describes an apparent lack of scientific knowledge that seems to affect a participant's ability to understand the research, b) 'Motivation' describes narratives about why participants chose (not) to take part in the research, despite not understanding it, and c) 'Trust' describes how trust served to mitigate the apparent ethical deficit created by not being fully informed. In this article, we argue that informed trust is likely an acceptable basis for consent, particularly in settings where scientific literacy might be low. However, researchers must work to be worthy of that trust and ensure that misconceptions are actively addressed.

The Ottawa Statement implementation guidance document for cluster randomized trials in the hemodialysis setting.

Research teams are increasingly interested in using cluster randomized trial (CRT) designs to generate practice-guiding evidence for in-center maintenance hemodialysis. However, CRTs raise complex ethical issues. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials, published in 2012, provides 15 recommendations to address ethical issues arising within 7 domains: justifying the CRT design, research ethics committee review, identifying research participants, obtaining informed consent, gatekeepers, assessing benefits and harms, and protecting vulnerable participants. But applying the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting is complicated by the unique features of the setting and population. Here, with the help of content experts and patient partners, we co-developed this implementation guidance document to provide research teams, research ethics committees, and other stakeholders with detailed guidance on how to apply the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting, the result of a 4-year research project. Thus, our work demonstrates how the voices of patients, caregivers, and all stakeholders may be included in the development of research ethics guidance.

Decentralised clinical trials in rural Australia: Opportunities and challenges.

AIMS: To present opportunities and a model to redress the under-representation of rural communities and people in Australian clinical trials. CONTEXT: Clinical trials are essential for building and understanding the health evidence base. The lack of representation of rural people in clinical trials is evident in other countries. Examining the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR) suggests this is also the case in Australia. APPROACH: We propose an approach that empowers rurally based academics and clinicians to co-design clinical trials and increase rural Australians' participation in clinical trials to address this inequality of access. A case study of a decentralised, co-designed clinical trial is presented to support this approach. CONCLUSION: Decentralising clinical trials could improve access to clinical trials, strengthen the social capital of rural communities and help address the health inequalities that exist between rural and metropolitan communities.

Government Initiatives for Research Ethics During COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing necessity for government-led policy changes on clinical research ethics during pandemic, the scope of previous literature is limited to Korean government's pandemic response strategies or reflections of research ethics at the level of institutions and academic societies. This paper examines the proactive policy changes and responses by the South Korean government in addressing the challenges and issues of research ethics against the backdrop of the urgency of rapid development and emergency supply of medical products during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted searches of various government documents, using predetermined keywords related to research ethics and integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only documents issued by governments or public institutions were included. A total of 24 documents were selected for analysis. They were divided into two phases: the first phase for urgent response (January 2020-February 2021) and the second phase (March 2021-February 2023) for long-term preparedness. RESULTS: The Korean government recommended several measures of research governance to accelerate the ethical review of COVID-related research to be shortened less than one week: the joint operation of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), exempted or expedited review by a special review committee, guidelines for urgent reviews, and designation of the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences as the supervising agency for the Clinical Trial Safety Support Institution as well as the Central IRB. It allowed temporary non-face-to-face methods for informed consent process (telephone explanations and a photo of the original signed consent) and clinical trials (telephone counselling and prescription, proxy prescription, and drug delivery and supply to clinical trial participants, and online ethics training). CONCLUSION: As a result of South Korea's commitment to ethical principles in their pandemic response, the medical system did not experience collapses due to the pandemic, and pandemic research was conducted with careful ethical considerations. The pandemic ethics immunization during the Middle East respiratory syndrome epidemic in 2015 laid the foundation for prompt government initiatives that ensured both pandemic research ethics and pandemic response ethics.

Post-trial access to implantable neural devices: an exploratory international survey.

Objectives: Clinical trials of innovative neural implants are rapidly increasing and diversifying, but little is known about participants' post-trial access to the device and ongoing clinical care. This exploratory study examines common practices in the planning and coordination of post-trial access to neurosurgical devices. We also explore the perspectives of trial investigators on the barriers to post-trial access and ongoing care, as well as ethical questions related to the responsibilities of key stakeholder groups. Design setting and participants: Trial investigators (n=66) completed a survey on post-trial access in the most recent investigational trial of a surgically implanted neural device they had conducted. Survey respondents predominantly specialized in neurosurgery, neurology and psychiatry, with a mean of 14.8 years of experience working with implantable neural devices. Main outcome measures: Outcomes of interest included rates of device explantation during or at the conclusion of the trial (pre-follow-up) and whether plans for post-trial access were described in the study protocol. Outcomes also included investigators' greatest 'barrier' and 'facilitator' to providing research participants with post-trial access to functional implants and perspectives on current arrangements for the sharing of post-trial responsibilities among key stakeholders. Results: Trial investigators reported either 'all' (64%) or 'most' (33%) trial participants had remained implanted after the end of the trial, with 'infection' and 'non-response' the most common reasons for explantation. When asked to describe the main barriers to facilitating post-trial access, investigators described limited funding, scarcity of expertise and specialist clinical infrastructure and difficulties maintaining stakeholder relationships. Notwithstanding these barriers, investigators overwhelmingly (95%) agreed there is an ethical obligation to provide post-trial access when participants individually benefit during the trial. Conclusions: On occasions when devices were explanted during or at the end of the trial, this was done out of concern for the safety and well-being of participants. Further research into common practices in the post-trial phase is needed and essential to ethical and pragmatic discussions regarding stakeholder responsibilities.

Research ethics and artificial intelligence for global health: perspectives from the global forum on bioethics in research.

BACKGROUND: The ethical governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health care and public health continues to be an urgent issue for attention in policy, research, and practice. In this paper we report on central themes related to challenges and strategies for promoting ethics in research involving AI in global health, arising from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR), held in Cape Town, South Africa in November 2022. METHODS: The GFBR is an annual meeting organized by the World Health Organization and supported by the Wellcome Trust, the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the South African MRC. The forum aims to bring together ethicists, researchers, policymakers, research ethics committee members and other actors to engage with challenges and opportunities specifically related to research ethics. In 2022 the focus of the GFBR was "Ethics of AI in Global Health Research". The forum consisted of 6 case study presentations, 16 governance presentations, and a series of small group and large group discussions. A total of 87 participants attended the forum from 31 countries around the world, representing disciplines of bioethics, AI, health policy, health professional practice, research funding, and bioinformatics. In this paper, we highlight central insights arising from GFBR 2022. RESULTS: We describe the significance of four thematic insights arising from the forum: (1) Appropriateness of building AI, (2) Transferability of AI systems, (3) Accountability for AI decision-making and outcomes, and (4) Individual consent. We then describe eight recommendations for governance leaders to enhance the ethical governance of AI in global health research, addressing issues such as AI impact assessments, environmental values, and fair partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: The 2022 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research illustrated several innovations in ethical governance of AI for global health research, as well as several areas in need of urgent attention internationally. This summary is intended to inform international and domestic efforts to strengthen research ethics and support the evolution of governance leadership to meet the demands of AI in global health research.

Leveraging and exercising caution with ChatGPT and other generative artificial intelligence tools in environmental psychology research.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) is an emerging and disruptive technology that has attracted considerable interest from researchers and educators across various disciplines. We discuss the relevance and concerns of ChatGPT and other GAI tools in environmental psychology research. We propose three use categories for GAI tools: integrated and contextualized understanding, practical and flexible implementation, and two-way external communication. These categories are exemplified by topics such as the health benefits of green space, theory building, visual simulation, and identifying practical relevance. However, we also highlight the balance of productivity with ethical issues, as well as the need for ethical guidelines, professional training, and changes in the academic performance evaluation systems. We hope this perspective can foster constructive dialogue and responsible practice of GAI tools.

Prevalence, Characteristics, and Trends in Retracted Spine Literature: 2000 - 2023.

BACKGROUND: Retraction of scientific publications is an important check on scientific misconduct and serves to maintain the integrity of the scientific literature. The present study aims to examine the prevalence, trends, and characteristics of retracted spine literature across basic science and clinical spine literature. METHODS: Multiple databases were queried for retracted papers relating to spine or spine surgery, between January 2000 and May 2023. Of 112,668 publications initially identified, 125 were ultimately included in the present study following screening by two independent reviewers. Journal of origin, reasons for retraction, date of publication, date of retraction, impact factor of journal, countries of research origin, and study design were collected for each included publication. RESULTS: Clinical studies were the most frequent type of retracted publication (n=70). The most common reason for retraction was fraud (n=58), followed by plagiarism (n=22) and peer review process manipulation (n=16). Impact factors ranged from 0.3 to 11.1 with a median of 3.75. Average months from publication to retraction across all studies was 37.5 months. The higher the journal impact factor, the longer the amount of time between publication and retraction (p = 0.01). China (n=63) was the country of origin of more than half of all retracted spine publications. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of retractions has been increasing over the past 23 years, and clinical studies have been the most frequently retracted publication type. Clinicians treating disorders of the spine should be aware of these trends when relying on the clinical literature to inform their practice.

Valuing Academic Freedom and Advocacy.

This is a correspondence letter in response to an article published in the journal: Flaherman VJ, Nankabirwa V, Ginsburg AS. Promoting Transparent and Equitable Discussion of Controversial Research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2023; 18(4): 248-9.

Loosening research ethical standards in Brazil? An analysis of bill 6007/2023 / Flexibilizando padrões éticos em pesquisa no Brasil? Uma análise do PL 6007/2023

Bill 6007/2023 proposes significant changes to the National System of Ethics in Clinical Research with Human Beings. The justification is that the debureaucratization of the system would contribute to scientific progress. The article analyzes the main points of the bill, to verify the adequacy between what is proposed and the expected outcomes: normative level; time of analysis; role of the central organ; consent; post-study treatment; placebo; monitoring; and measures resulting from non-compliance. Although the normative level and the proscription of placebo, except when there is no proven effective intervention, offer a protective effect. The other changes either do not contribute to increasing the protection of the participants or effectively loosen moral obligations towards them. The lack of protections and guarantees does not speed up research, as is often argued, but, on the contrary, can cause more risk to participants and lead to discredit and distrust of science.

O Projeto de Lei (PL) 6007/2023 propõe reformulações significativas do Sistema Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa Clínica com Seres Humanos. A justificativa apresentada é que a desburocratização do Sistema contribuiria para o avanço científico. O artigo analisa os aspectos mais significativos do PL, a fim de verificar a adequação entre a proposta e os efeitos esperados: nível normativo; tempo da análise; papel do órgão central; consentimento; tratamento pós-estudo; placebo; monitoramento; e, medidas resultantes de descumprimento. Embora o nível normativo e a vedação do uso de placebo quando da existência de tratamento comprovadamente eficaz ofereçam efeito protetivo, as demais alterações ou não contribuem para aumentar a proteção do participante ou efetivamente flexibilizam obrigações éticas presentes na atual regulamentação. A desproteção dos participantes não acelera pesquisas, como se costuma argumentar, podendo, ao contrário, além de causar mais risco, levar ao descrédito e desconfiança em relação à ciência.

Ethical Principles in Plastic Surgery Research.

Research is an integral part of medical progress that leads to better understanding of disease processes and the development of therapies to improve patient care. The medical community has an obligation and societal responsibility to review its practices and advance its knowledge to optimize care for those who entrust it with their health and well-being. While ultimately intended to benefit patients specifically and society as a whole, every laboratory and clinical investigation inherently carries an element of uncertainty and has attendant risks. These can have unintended and, at times, harmful consequences that cannot justify the knowledge gained. In order to mitigate these risks and protect human subjects involved in clinical research studies, a basic framework of ethical principles has been developed to guide responsible experimental design, execution, and data dissemination. This article provides a review of these principles and the historical context from which they were derived and explores the persistent challenges and cognitive biases that can increase susceptibility to unethical research practices.

Decision-making and autonomy among participants in early-phase cancer immunotherapy trials: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Participants considering early-phase cancer clinical trials (CTs) need to understand the unique risks and benefits prior to providing informed consent. This qualitative study explored the factors that influence patients' decisions about participating in early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs through the ethical lens of relational autonomy. METHODS: Using an interpretive descriptive design, interviews were conducted with 21 adult patients with advanced cancer who had enrolled in an early-phase CT. Data was analyzed using relational autonomy ethical theory and constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: The extent to which participants perceived themselves as having a choice to participate in early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs was a central construct. Perceptions of choice varied according to whether participants characterized their experience as an act of desperation or as an opportunity to receive a novel treatment. Intersecting psychosocial and structural factors influenced participants' decision making about participating in early-phase cancer immunotherapy trials. These relational factors included: (1) being provided with hope; (2) having trust; (3) having the ability to withdraw; and (4) timing constraints. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the continuum of perceived choice that exists among patients with cancer when considering participation in early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs. All participants were interpreted as exhibiting some degree of relational autonomy within the psychosocial and structural context of early-phase CT decision making. This study offers insights into the intersection of cancer care delivery, personal beliefs and values, and established CT processes and structures that can inform future practices and policies associated with early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs to better support patients in making informed decisions.

Evaluation of a Training Program on Gender Mainstreaming in Health Research Evaluation at the Senegalese National Research Ethics Committee.

Health research must be of high ethical and scientific quality and consider the needs and experiences of women, men, and nonbinary individuals. National Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are in a strategic position to impede sex- and gender-blind research. In 2020 and 2021, training programs on gender mainstreaming and sex and gender approaches in research evaluation were launched in Senegal. They were evaluated through a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods. Knowledge acquisition was 16.67%, 8.54%, and 28.42% for the trainees of 2021, 2020, and those who attended the training in both years, respectively. Gender mainstreaming was reported as pertinent in research ethics by 74% of participants. This training is expected to catalyze gender-transformative research ethics in West Africa.

Close contacts of xenograft recipients: Ethical considerations due to risk of xenozoonosis.

With decades of pre-clinical studies culminating in the recent clinical application of xenotransplantation, it would appear timely to provide recommendations for operationalizing oversight of xenotransplantation clinical trials. Ethical issues with clinical xenotransplantation have been described for decades, largely centering on animal welfare, the risks posed to the recipient, and public health risks posed by potential spread of xenozoonosis. Much less attention has been given to considerations relating to potentially elevated risks faced by those who may care for or otherwise have close contact with xenograft recipients. This paper examines the ethical and logistical issues raised by the potential exposure to xenozoonotic disease faced by close contacts of xenotransplant recipients-defined herein as including but not limited to caregivers, household contacts, and sexual partners-which warrants special attention given their increased risk of exposure to infection compared to the general public. We discuss implications of assent or consent by these close contacts to potentially undergo, along with the recipient, procedures for infection screening and possible quarantine. We then propose several options and recommendations for operationalizing oversight of xenotransplantation clinical trials that could account for and address close contacts' education on and agency regarding the risk of xenozoonosis.

Ethical challenges in global research on health system responses to violence against women: a qualitative study of policy and professional perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Studying global health problems requires international multidisciplinary teams. Such multidisciplinarity and multiculturalism create challenges in adhering to a set of ethical principles across different country contexts. Our group on health system responses to violence against women (VAW) included two universities in a European high-income country (HIC) and four universities in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to investigate professional and policy perspectives on the types, causes of, and solutions to ethical challenges specific to the ethics approval stage of the global research projects on health system responses to VAW. METHODS: We used the Network of Ethical Relationships model, framework method, and READ approach to analyse qualitative semi-structured interviews (n = 18) and policy documents (n = 27). In March-July 2021, we recruited a purposive sample of researchers and members of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) from the five partner countries. Interviewees signposted policies and guidelines on research ethics, including VAW. RESULTS: We developed three themes with eight subthemes summarising ethical challenges across three contextual factors. The global nature of the group contributed towards power and resource imbalance between HIC and LMICs and differing RECs' rules. Location of the primary studies within health services highlighted differing rules between university RECs and health authorities. There were diverse conceptualisations of VAW and vulnerability of research participants between countries and limited methodological and topic expertise in some LMIC RECs. These factors threatened the timely delivery of studies and had a negative impact on researchers and their relationships with RECs and HIC funders. Most researchers felt frustrated and demotivated by the bureaucratised, uncoordinated, and lengthy approval process. Participants suggested redistributing power and resources between HICs and LMICs, involving LMIC representatives in developing funding agendas, better coordination between RECs and health authorities and capacity strengthening on ethics in VAW research. CONCLUSIONS: The process of ethics approval for global research on health system responses to VAW should be more coordinated across partners, with equal power distribution between HICs and LMICs, researchers and RECs. While some of these objectives can be achieved through education for RECs and researchers, the power imbalance and differing rules should be addressed at the institutional, national, and international levels. Three of the authors were also research participants, which had potential to introduce bias into the findings. However, rigorous reflexivity practices mitigated against this. This insider perspective was also a strength, as it allowed us to access and contribute to more nuanced understandings to enhance the credibility of the findings. It also helped to mitigate against unequal power dynamics.

Public support for and concerns regarding pediatric dose optimization for seizures in emergency medical services: An exception from informed consent (EFIC) trial.

BACKGROUND: Federal regulations allow exception from informed consent (EFIC) to study emergent conditions when obtaining prospective consent is not feasible. Little is known about public views on including children in EFIC studies. The Pediatric Dose Optimization for Seizures in EMS (PediDOSE) trial implements age-based, standardized midazolam dosing for pediatric seizures. The primary objective of this study was to determine public support for and concerns about the PediDOSE EFIC trial. The secondary objective was to assess how support for PediDOSE varied by demographics. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study in 20 U.S. communities. Participants reviewed information about PediDOSE before completing an online survey. Descriptive data were generated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis identified factors associated with support for PediDOSE. Reviewers identified themes from free-text response data regarding participant concerns. RESULTS: Of 2450 respondents, 79% were parents/guardians, and 20% had a child with previous seizures. A total of 96% of respondents supported PediDOSE being conducted, and 70% approved of children being enrolled without prior consent. Non-Hispanic Black respondents were less likely than non-Hispanic White respondents to support PediDOSE with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.57 (95% CI 0.42-0.75). Health care providers were more likely to support PediDOSE, with strongest support among prehospital emergency medicine clinicians (aOR 5.82, 95% CI 3.19-10.62). Age, gender, parental status, and level of education were not associated with support of PediDOSE. Common concerns about PediDOSE included adverse effects, legal and ethical concerns about enrolling without consent, and potential racial bias. CONCLUSIONS: In communities where this study will occur, most respondents supported PediDOSE being conducted with EFIC and most approved of children being enrolled without prior consent. Support was lowest among non-Hispanic Black respondents and highest among health care providers. Further research is needed to determine optimal ways to address the concerns of specific racial and ethnic groups when conducting EFIC trials.

Why restrict medical effective altruism?

In a challenge trial, research subjects are purposefully exposed to some pathogen in a controlled setting, in order to test the efficacy of a vaccine or other experimental treatment. This is an example of medical effective altruism (MEA), where individuals volunteer to risk harms for the public good. Many bioethicists rejected challenge trials in the context of Covid-19 vaccine research on ethical grounds. After considering various grounds of this objection, I conclude that the crucial question is how much harm research subjects can permissibly risk. But we lack a satisfying way of making this judgment that does not appeal simply to the intuitions of doctors or bioethicists. I consider one recent and structurally plausible approach to critically evaluating the harm question. Alex London defends a social consistency test for research risks: we should compare the risks undertaken by research subjects to relevantly similar risks which are accepted in other spheres of society. I argue there is no good reason not to consider volunteer military service as a relevant social comparison. This implies there is essentially no cap on acceptable risks on the social consistency rationale. In short, if soldiers can be heroes, why can't research volunteers?

Biomedical research on autism in low- and middle-income countries: Considerations from the South African context.

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by social/communicative difficulties and perseverative behaviours. While research on autism has flourished recently, few studies have been conducted on the disorder in non-Western contexts. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), biomedical research on autism is required to better understand the needs of the population and to develop contextually appropriate interventions. However, autistic individuals are a vulnerable study population and LMICs present with various considerations. While the presentation of autism is heterogeneous, stigma is a common social consequence affecting research. Drawing specifically on the South African context, the ethical intersections of these issues are discussed, along with the limitations of the current informed consent process. Community engagement is recommended as an adjunct to informed consent to ensure that biomedical research is conducted in a more inclusive way. Practical pointers are provided for implementing systematic support for conducting community engagement alongside biomedical research.