MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970840185 · doi:10.1145/1859823.1859832

Standards for physiological data transmission and archiving for the support of the service of critical care

2009· article· en· W1970840185 on OpenAlexaff
Johan Eklund, Carolyn McGregor

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGBED Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceService (business)Transmission (telecommunications)External Data RepresentationData transmissionData scienceMedicineBusinessTelecommunicationsComputer hardware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physiological data is monitored and displayed on medical devices around the world every day, and the volume of this data is steadily increasing and newer monitoring devices enter the clinical setting. However, the vast majority of this data is lost since it is most often displayed once as it is recorded, perhaps replayed one or more times while it exists in the device's volatile memory. What little data that is permanently recorded is most commonly saved through hand written annotations, in paper records and in some limited samples stored on hospital clinical information systems. Meanwhile, current methods of data analysis provide opportunities to utilize this data for improved care of these same critical care patients. A major inhibitor to this becoming reality is the lack of standards for the representation, transmission and storage of physiological data. HL7, for example, does not include definitions for time series data. Research into the use of these data will soon be reaching the clinical setting and the need for such standards to be defined is becoming urgent.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.077
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.107
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0770.107
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.014

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGBED ReviewSame topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207