MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1595347198 · doi:10.1109/icact.2015.7224818

Security middleware infrastructure for medical imaging system integration

2015· article· en· W1595347198 on OpenAlexafffund
Weina Ma, Kamran Sartipi, Mohammadhassan Sharghigoorabi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsComputer scienceMiddleware (distributed applications)Computer securityAccess controlAuthentication (law)The InternetVulnerability (computing)Security serviceWorld Wide WebInformation securityDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing demand of electronic medical records sharing, it is a challenge for medical imaging service providers to protect the patient privacy and secure their IT infrastructure in an integrated environment. In this paper, we present a novel security middleware infrastructure for seamlessly and securely linking legacy medical imaging systems, diagnostic imaging web applications as well as mobile applications. Software agent such as user agent and security agent have been integrated into medical imaging domains that can be trained to perform tasks. The proposed security middleware utilizes both online security technologies such as authentication, authorization and accounting, and post security procedures to discover system security vulnerability. By integrating with the proposed security middleware, both legacy system users and Internet users can be uniformly identified and authenticated; access to patient diagnostic images can be controlled based on patient's consent directives and other access control polices defined at a central point; relevant user access activities can be audited at a central repository; user access behaviour patterns are mined to refine existing security policies. A case study is presented based on the proposed infrastructure.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207