Effective Healthcare Reform Must Include a Patient Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient Destiny’s first “day of action” was the One Patient, One Record symposium held April 2009 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The one-day event offered a dialogue opportunity between two distinct stakeholders – healthcare personnel and patients. This symposium brought together key healthcare decision makers and service delivery personnel in direct communication with highly motivated and informed patients. There were more than 100 participants in attendance including close to 50 patients and patient representatives, along with invited healthcare personnel. During the day, there were 10 presentations from global leaders focused on the area of electronic health records (EHRs) and the dynamic and innovative role that patients can play in a revolutionized healthcare delivery system. In addition, there was open discussion on five previously prepared questions. These discussions each concluded with a vote (in favour or against) of the question and allowed for detailed comments to be submitted. Herein, we include the rationale for this first day of action to promote eHealth and present voting results summarizing the participants’ varying perspectives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.041 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.040 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".