24:I[63208,["8920","static/chunks/8920-efbff8517d590b7e.js","9097","static/chunks/9097-7e60ff382fede0de.js","5914","static/chunks/5914-356082358a498a0b.js","9903","static/chunks/9903-11222066602aad8e.js","5438","static/chunks/5438-cfc6cd3ec63ed58c.js","3851","static/chunks/3851-d9d99b9df58ccefb.js","4621","static/chunks/4621-60797c2425663d2a.js","6871","static/chunks/6871-85cb03c97585f46a.js","6736","static/chunks/6736-932312a004c99faf.js","4550","static/chunks/4550-0bf059e3050c08b3.js","688","static/chunks/688-a6a2ac7bff269cd3.js","3984","static/chunks/3984-063c0b62f32133c7.js","7038","static/chunks/7038-4f87670d4e55ef18.js","9039","static/chunks/9039-75366c62dc7d0d0e.js","4563","static/chunks/4563-ad980d1babbf7b0b.js","6761","static/chunks/6761-0c10d1446de7ae1c.js","744","static/chunks/744-1e76229abb9e297b.js","7342","static/chunks/7342-1586df78600bf911.js","3617","static/chunks/3617-1f62a097637f4747.js","5895","static/chunks/5895-caa6c774914eb108.js","7481","static/chunks/7481-3b84c503a2ebfb3f.js","3668","static/chunks/3668-7dab69e4121c33af.js","39","static/chunks/39-e93a27d0920e6d92.js","2881","static/chunks/2881-445cc2384af2c6f9.js","2364","static/chunks/2364-e83d52fb21729d99.js","3208","static/chunks/3208-e65462d166bd3688.js","7582","static/chunks/app/toc/%5Btla%5D/%5Bvolume%5D/%5Bissue%5D/page-694a0e465c2c1334.js"],"default"] 25:T407,

Background: Institutional review boards (IRBs) face delays in reviewing research proposals, underscoring the need for optimized standard operating procedures (SOPs). This study assesses the abilities of three artificial intelligence (AI) platforms to address IRB challenges and draft essential SOPs. Methods: An observational study was conducted using three AI platforms in 10 case studies reflecting IRB functions, focusing on creating SOPs. The accuracy of the AI outputs was assessed against good clinical practice (GCP) guidelines. Results: The AI tools identified GCP issues, offered guidance on GCP violations, detected conflicts of interest and SOP deficiencies, recognized vulnerable populations, and suggested expedited review criteria. They also drafted SOPs with some differences. Conclusion: AI platforms could aid IRB decision-making and improve review efficiency. However, human oversight remains critical for ensuring the accuracy of AI-generated solutions.

26:T44e,

This scoping review explores current practices for obtaining consent in research on risky behaviours among adolescents in Canada. The JBI methodology for scoping reviews was used. The database search was conducted in August 2021 and updated in November 2022. Papers published in 2010 or later were included. Extracted data included study characteristics, sample characteristics, and consent procedures. The review included 83 reports covering 57 studies. Nearly 60% of studies relied on adolescent self-consent for participation. Adolescent self-consent was more common than parental/guardian consent for studies using in-person research methods, older adolescent groups, and particularly vulnerable populations. Parental/guardian consent was more common for studies using younger age groups and general population samples. Adolescent self-consent was more common than parental/guardian consent for most risky behaviours covered by this review. These results provide insight into current consent practices in this area and offer guidance to researchers and institutional review boards in Canada.

27:T45d,

Gender-diverse individuals are underserved in clinical research settings. Reliance on gendered language throughout the consent process for clinical research contributes to the marginalization of these populations. The research objective was to assess use of gender-inclusive language used to describe the contraception requirement in consent forms. We categorized and analyzed contraception language in 289 clinical trial consent forms using a deductive and summative content analysis approach. We found that 79% (n = 227) of consent forms contained gender-inclusive language,