Big Data in Healthcare – Defining the Digital Persona through User Contexts from the Micro to the Macro
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: While big data offers enormous potential for improving healthcare delivery, many of the existing claims concerning big data in healthcare are based on anecdotal reports and theoretical vision papers, rather than scientific evidence based on empirical research. Historically, the implementation of health information technology has resulted in unintended consequences at the individual, organizational and social levels, but these unintended consequences of collecting data have remained unaddressed in the literature on big data. The objective of this paper is to provide insights into big data from the perspective of people, social and organizational considerations. METHOD: We draw upon the concept of persona to define the digital persona as the intersection of data, tasks and context for different user groups. We then describe how the digital persona can serve as a framework to understanding sociotechnical considerations of big data implementation. We then discuss the digital persona in the context of micro, meso and macro user groups across the 3 Vs of big data. RESULTS: We provide insights into the potential benefits and challenges of applying big data approaches to healthcare as well as how to position these approaches to achieve health system objectives such as patient safety or patient-engaged care delivery. We also provide a framework for defining the digital persona at a micro, meso and macro level to help understand the user contexts of big data solutions. CONCLUSION: While big data provides great potential for improving healthcare delivery, it is essential that we consider the individual, social and organizational contexts of data use when implementing big data solutions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it