MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086404477 · doi:10.1109/soca.2013.18

Composition of the Electronic Health Record: Mobile Efficiency in mHealth

2013· article· en· W2086404477 on OpenAlexaff
Richard K. Lomotey, Ralph Deters

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencemHealthScalabilityCloud computingMobile computingComputer networkWeb serviceWorld Wide WebDatabaseHealth careOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, there is growing research interest in the area of mHealth which aims at extending the Electronic Health Records (EHR) accessibility to the mobile node. This era facilitates real-time access to medical data which is also crucial for remote healthcare delivery. However, as reported in previous studies, supporting real-time access and services synchronization in highly distributed mobile environments can be challenging due to the presence of the following factors: 1) sporadic wireless disconnections, 2) fluctuating bandwidth, 3) variations in device features, and 4) battery life constraints. In this paper, we aim to enhance the medical data exchanges within the mHealth system efficiently through network adaptation. First, since the medical data is made of different web services (e.g., REST and SOAP), services composition mechanism is proposed that transforms all the web services to REST. Second, since the services processing can be intensive on the mobile, we proposed the process offloading to the cloud based on a policy that determines the availability of network bandwidth. The pilot testing of our work shows that the EHR can be accessed in real time and the system is also scalable.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207