Belgian Integrated Health Record (BIHR): from 2025, all well-being and health data will be available for all members of the care team, including the patient himself. 
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
•Why are you conducting a workshop? Please explain the problem, the context, or the case study, It would be an absolute added value for the BIHR-project to also hear the voice and opinion from other countries and experts: what went very smoothly? But also, what obstacles were they confronted with and how did they tackle these challenges. •Who is it for? Please explain who you would like to engage with. BIHR is a ‘Moonshot’: the expert group defined four major groups that are essential to bring BIHR to a successful project: the citizens, the healthcare providers, the various governments, and partners from the industry. In the panel debate we would like to have representatives from those different stakeholders around the table. It would also be an absolute added value to hear success stories from other countries and see if things could be realized in Belgium in the short and/or medium term. •Ilke Montag, MD, MSc: lead of the Belgian expert panel about BIHR •Jan De Maeseneer, MD, PhD: Head of WHO Collaborating Centre on Family Medicine and Primary Health Care - Ghent University Belgium •Bart Van den Bosch, MD, PHD: CIO at University Hospital Leuven Belgium •A representative of the European Patients Forum (European Patients' Forum - Home (eu-patient.eu)) •A representative of the International Hospital Federation (Home - IHF - International Hospital Federation (ihf-fih.org)) •Someone who can explain the concept and the functioning of EHRs in the Canadian Primary Health Care Services •Someone who can explain the concept and the functioning of Slovenian Community health centers with multidisciplinary teams •What are you going to do? Please explain the structure of the session. Please remember that workshops’ objective is to be interactive and engage with the audience - At least ½ of the time should be based on the interaction with the audience. •How are you going to engage with the audience? •How are you going to summarize the take home messages? We will start with a short 15 min. presentation/introduction of the concept of BIHR. Afterwards, the moderator asks for a short reflection on this concept by the various panel members. The panel members are then asked to name both a success story and the lessons learnt from less successful projects. To involve the public in the debate, statements for debate will be used, each time from a unique perspective (citizens, care providers, governments, industry). The panel members will be confronted with the voting results on the statements. The take home message will be a compilation of the success keys cited by each of the panel. There will also be a warm appeal to work together not only across the various levels in health care, but also across national borders.
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 | 0,012 | 0,026 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,106 | 0,059 |
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 ».