MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2007250026 · doi:10.3138/jvme.38.2.110

Connecting Knowledge Resources to the Veterinary Electronic Health Record: Opportunities for Learning at Point of Care

2011· article· en· W2007250026 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kristine M. Alpi, Heidi A. Burnett, Sheila Bryant, Katherine M. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversità degli Studi di MilanoU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsHealth careMedicineMedical recordVocabularyKnowledge managementWorld Wide WebMedical educationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electronic health records (EHRs) provide clinical learning opportunities through quick and contextual linkage of patient signalment, symptom, and diagnosis data with knowledge resources covering tests, drugs, conditions, procedures, and client instructions. This paper introduces the EHR standards for linkage and the partners-practitioners, content publishers, and software developers-necessary to leverage this possibility in veterinary medicine. The efforts of the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) Electronic Health Records Task Force to partner with veterinary practice management systems to improve the use of controlled vocabulary is a first step in the development of standards for sharing knowledge at the point of care. The Veterinary Medical Libraries Section (VMLS) of the Medical Library Association's Task Force on Connecting the Veterinary Health Record to Information Resources compiled a list of resources of potential use at point of care. Resource details were drawn from product Web sites and organized by a metric used to evaluate medical point-of-care resources. Additional information was gathered from questions sent by e-mail and follow-up interviews with two practitioners, a hospital network, two software developers, and three publishers. Veterinarians with electronic records use a variety of information resources that are not linked to their software. Systems lack the infrastructure to use the Infobutton standard that has been gaining popularity in human EHRs. While some veterinary knowledge resources are digital, publisher sites and responses do not indicate a Web-based linkage of veterinary resources with EHRs. In order to facilitate lifelong learning and evidence-based practice, veterinarians and educators of future practitioners must demonstrate to veterinary practice software developers and publishers a clinically-based need to connect knowledge resources to veterinary EHRs.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0110.024
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.006

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 head0.420
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.117 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education→Same topicHealth Sciences Research and Education→French-language works237,207→