MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058323079 · doi:10.1145/2047478.2047480

The safety of Electronic Medical Record (EMR) systems

2011· article· en· W2058323079 on OpenAlex
Jens H. Weber-Jahnke, Fieran Mason-Blakley

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGHIT Record · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSAFERPatient safetyAdaptation (eye)Risk analysis (engineering)Quality (philosophy)Health careDomain (mathematical analysis)Information systemComputer scienceElectronic medical recordComputer securityKnowledge managementBusinessEngineeringInternet privacyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information and communication technology is rapidly transforming modern health care systems. Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) systems have replaced traditional forms of storing, processing, interpreting and exchanging patient health in many health care organizations. However, an increasing number of concerns are raised about the quality of EMR systems and industry regulators are pondering ways to ensure safer health information technologies. This paper discusses fundamental concepts associated with the safety of EMR systems, describes current approaches to regulating the industry, and discusses limitations of traditional safety engineering methods with respect to their application to EMR systems. We then present a domain-specific adaptation of Leveson's system-theoretic model STAMP for safety engineering of EMR systems and demonstrate its application with a real-world case study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.316 · 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