MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Use of Electronic Health Information Systems in Home Care

2010· review· en· W2062129113 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul Stolee, Brandie Steeves, Christine Glenny, Stephanie Filsinger

Bibliographic record

VenueHome Healthcare Nurse · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMinimum Data SetSet (abstract data type)Health careMedicineNursingPsychologyComputer scienceNursing homesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electronic health information systems (EHIS) containing standardized assessment data (e.g., RAI-Home Care, Outcome and Assessment Information Set [OASIS]) hold considerable promise, but their potential has yet to be fully realized. Literature was searched for strategies on implementing and using EHIS, including barriers and facilitators of their use in home care. Results of this review will be discussed in terms of their implications for the future development and use of EHIS in home care, and for future research.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.355 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHome Healthcare NurseSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207