Informing physicians using a situated decision support system: Disease management for the smart city
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are in the midst of a healthcare paradigm shift driven by the wide adoption of ubiquitous computing and various modes of information communications technologies. As a result, cities worldwide are undergoing a major process of urbanization with ever increasing wealth of sensing capabilities – hence the Internet of Things (IoT). These trends impose great pressure on how healthcare is done. This paper describes the design and implementation of a situated clinical decision support (SCDSS) system, most appropriate for smart cities. The SCDSS was prototyped and enhanced in a clinic. The SCDSS was then used in a clinic as well as in a university hospital centre. In this article, the system’s architecture, subcomponents and integrated workflow are described. The systems’ design was the result of a knowledge acquisition process involving interviews with five specialists and testing with 50 patients. The reports (specialist consultation report) generated by the SCDSS were shown to general practitioners who were not able to distinguish them from human specialist reports. We propose a context-aware CDSS and assess its effectiveness in managing a wide medical range of patients. Five different patient cases were identified for analysis. The SCDSS was used to produce draft electronic specialist consultations, which were then compared to the original specialists’ consultations. It was found that the SCDSS-generated consults were of better quality for a number of reasons discussed herein. SCDSSs have great promise for their use in the clinical environment of smart cities. Valuable insights into the integration and use of situated clinical decision support systems are highlighted and suggestions for future research are given.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".