MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036823550 · doi:10.1097/phh.0b013e3181ddcbc0

Characterization of Public Health Alerts and Their Suitability for Alerting in Electronic Health Record Systems

2011· article· en· W2036823550 on OpenAlexaff
Nedra Garrett, Ninad Mishra, Barbara Nichols, Catherine J. Staes, Chuck Akin, Charles Safran

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health Management and Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsSafran Electronics (Canada)
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsElectronic health recordPublic healthHealth recordsMedical emergencyComputer scienceData scienceMedicineNursingPolitical scienceHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public health agencies including federal, state, and local governments routinely send out public health advisories and alerts via e-mail and text messages to health care providers to increase awareness of public health events and situations. Agencies must ensure that practitioners have timely and accessible information at the critical point-of-care. Electronic health record (EHR) systems have the potential to alert physicians of emerging health conditions deemed important for public health at the most critical time of need. To understand how public health agencies can leverage existing alerting mechanisms in EHR systems, it is important to understand characteristics of public health alerts to determine their suitability for alerting in EHR systems. Authors conducted a review and analysis of public health alerts for a 3-year period to identify critical data attributes necessary to support public health alerting in EHR systems. The alerts were restricted to those most relevant for clinical care. The results showed that there is an opportunity for disseminating actionable information to clinical practitioners at the point of care to guide care and reporting. Public health alerts in EHR systems can be useful in reporting, recommending specific tests, as well as suggesting secondary prevention.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.178
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.178
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.251
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public Health Management and PracticeSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207