MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Formal reliability analysis of a typical FHIR standard based e-Health system using PRISM

2014· article· en· W2089014229 on OpenAlex

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSafety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProbabilistic logicReliability (semiconductor)InteroperabilityMarkov chainModel checkingProcess (computing)Software engineeringData miningReliability engineeringMachine learningProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fast Health Interoperable Resources (FHIR) is the recently proposed standard from HL7. Its distinguishing features include the user friendly implementation, support of built-in terminologies and for widely-used web standards. Given the safety-critical nature of FHIR, the rigorous analysis of e-health systems using the FHIR is a dire need since they are prone to failures. As a first step towards this direction, we propose to use probabilistic model checking, i.e., a formal probabilistic analysis approach, to assess the reliability of a typical e-health system used in hospitals based on the FHIR standard. In particular, we use the PRISM model checker to analyze the Markov Decision Process (MDP) and Continuous Time Markov Chain (CTMC) models to assess the failure probabilities of the overall system.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSafety Systems Engineering in AutonomyFrench-language works237,207