Advances in Health Informatics Conference (AHIC 2010) The Realities of eHealth. April 2010
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Co-hosted by the National Institutes of Health Informatics, University of Waterloo Institute for Health Informatics Research, University of Waterloo School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo School of Optometry, and Conestoga College The Advances in Health Informatics Conference in 2010 brought together clinicians, researchers, and industry partners to present work describing the realities of Health Informatics in practice in Canada and around the world. AHIC is an bi-annual, top-tier, peer-reviewed, Health Informatics conference addressing innovation, research, and education, attracting national and international visionaries, researchers, industry experts and government leaders from around the globe. AHIC will alternate annually with the Information Technology and Communications in Health (ITCH) conference, held in Victoria, B.C. The work presented at AHIC aims at answering the question, “How can we make a difference?” We invited papers from industry and academia, which were peer-reviewed and presented at the conference. The authors of the papers that were most highly ranked during peer review were invited to participate in this special issue of the electronic Journal of Health Informatics. Each of the nine papers provides a valuable contribution to the Health Informatics literature. Papers that exhibited the qualities of novelty and generalizability in their were judged to be suitable for inclusion in a peer-reviewed journal. The articles encompass much of the field of Health Informatics. A case study by van Gemert-Pijnen and colleagues describes how a web based communication tool was developed with user-participation to assist Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus-colonized individuals in finding reliable and updated information related to their condition. Heimly and Hygen describe how information and communication technologies may support coordination of health care in Norway, and in particular, where effort needs to be applied to empower patients. One crucial area for the successful adoption of eHealth centers on the area of project management. Archer describes how project management can be integrated into eHealth curricula with the objective of improving student’s potential for achieving project success. Tolar and colleagues describe a difficult implementation where the researcher assisted staff during the adoption of an electronic medical record, confirming the need for highly trained IT staff with an understanding of the work of the individuals who use the system. Cowan and colleagues provide a fascinating account of the potential for collaborative geomatics to provide a space to develop new ideas and foster innovation and resilience within communities. Leonard and Dalziel provide valuable commentary in favor of including patient perspectives in order to identify significant opportunities to reform healthcare systems effectively. Paterson and colleagues present a methodology where the barriers and benefits to EMR implementation clarified areas which need further care and attention. Hurley and colleagues provide a valuable description of the what Canadian medical students are currently learning about medical informatics. Finally, Schleyer and colleagues put forth their vision for dental informatics now and in the future.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,062 | 0,028 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».