1.  19
    Returning Individual Research Results from Digital Phenotyping in Psychiatry.Francis X. Shen, Matthew L. Baum, Nicole Martinez-Martin, Adam S. Miner, Melissa Abraham, Catherine A. Brownstein, Nathan Cortez, Barbara J. Evans, Laura T. Germine, David C. Glahn, Christine Grady, Ingrid A. Holm, Elisa A. Hurley, Sara Kimble, Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz, Kimberlyn Leary, Mason Marks, Patrick J. Monette, Jukka-Pekka Onnela, P. Pearl O’Rourke, Scott L. Rauch, Carmel Shachar, Srijan Sen, Ipsit Vahia, Jason L. Vassy, Justin T. Baker, Barbara E. Bierer & Benjamin C. Silverman - 2024 - American Journal of Bioethics 24 (2):69-90.
    Psychiatry is rapidly adopting digital phenotyping and artificial intelligence/machine learning tools to study mental illness based on tracking participants’ locations, online activity, phone and text message usage, heart rate, sleep, physical activity, and more. Existing ethical frameworks for return of individual research results (IRRs) are inadequate to guide researchers for when, if, and how to return this unprecedented number of potentially sensitive results about each participant’s real-world behavior. To address this gap, we convened an interdisciplinary expert working group, supported by (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  2.  11
    FDA and the Marketplace of Ideas for Medical Products.Nathan Cortez - 2017 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 45 (s2):39-41.
    The market can produce skewed information about investigational products awaiting FDA approval. But the FDA rarely steps in to correct such misleading information, despite statutory authority to do so. This article evaluates a recommendation by the FDA Transparency Working Group that FDA more clearly signal when and how it will correct misleading information about investigational products, and why such a recommendation is particularly important after the 21st Century Cures Act.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Export citation  
  3.  9
    Readings in comparative health law and bioethics.Nathan Cortez, I. Glenn Cohen & Timothy S. Jost (eds.) - 2020 - Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.
    Originally edited by Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, this text examines how different countries around the world approach the same challenges in health care law and ethics: how to finance care for as many people as possible; how to ensure quality care; how to best secure patients' rights; how to regulate abortion, end of life decision making, and assisted reproduction; and how to manage infectious diseases, tobacco use, and human subject research. The new edition considers a broader array of countries, particularly from (...)
    Direct download  
    Export citation