Digital Medicine Community Perspectives and Challenges: Survey Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The field of digital medicine has seen rapid growth over the past decade. With this unfettered growth, challenges surrounding interoperability have emerged as a critical barrier to translating digital medicine into practice. In order to understand how to mitigate challenges in digital medicine research and practice, this community must understand the landscape of digital medicine professionals, which digital medicine tools are being used and how, and user perspectives on current challenges in the field of digital medicine. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to provide information to the digital medicine community that is working to establish frameworks and best practices for interoperability in digital medicine. We sought to learn about the background of digital medicine professionals and determine which sensors and file types are being used most commonly in digital medicine research. We also sought to understand perspectives on digital medicine interoperability. METHODS: We used a web-based survey to query a total of 56 digital medicine professionals from May 1, 2020, to July 10, 2020, on their educational and work experience, the sensors, file types, and toolkits they use professionally, and their perspectives on interoperability in digital medicine. RESULTS: We determined that the digital medicine community comes from diverse educational backgrounds and uses a variety of sensors and file types. Sensors measuring physical activity and the cardiovascular system are the most frequently used, and smartphones continue to be the dominant source of digital health information collection in the digital medicine community. We show that there is not a general consensus on file types in digital medicine, and data are currently handled in multiple ways. There is consensus that interoperability is a critical impediment in digital medicine, with 93% (52) of survey respondents in agreement. However, only 36% (20) of respondents currently use tools for interoperability in digital medicine. We identified three key interoperability needs to be met: integration with electronic health records, implementation of standard data schemas, and standard and verifiable methods for digital medicine research. We show that digital medicine professionals are eager to adopt new tools to solve interoperability problems, and we suggest tools to support digital medicine interoperability. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the digital medicine community, the sensors and file types they use, and their perspectives on interoperability will enable the development and implementation of solutions that fill critical interoperability gaps in digital medicine. The challenges to interoperability outlined by this study will drive the next steps in creating an interoperable digital medicine community. Establishing best practices to address these challenges and employing platforms for digital medicine interoperability will be essential to furthering the field of digital medicine.
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 | 0,014 | 0,041 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
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 ».