MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100063939 · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002068

A personally controlled electronic health record for Australia

2014· article· en· W2100063939 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Pearce, Michael Bainbridge

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsIsland Health
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsPatient portaleHealthGeneral partnershipBusinessHealth careStakeholderPublic relationsInternet privacyElectronic health recordPsychological interventionMedicineKnowledge managementNursingComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: On July 1, 2012 Australia launched a personally controlled electronic health record (PCEHR) designed around the needs of consumers. Using a distributed model and leveraging key component national eHealth infrastructure, the PCEHR is designed to enable sharing of any health information about a patient with them and any other health practitioner involved in their care to whom the patient allows access. This paper discusses the consumer-facing part of the program. METHOD: Design of the system was through stakeholder consultation and the development of detailed requirements, followed by clinical design assurance. RESULTS: Patients are able to access any posted information through a web-accessible 'consumer portal.' Within the portal they are able to assert access controls on all or part of their record. The portal includes areas for consumers to record their own personal information. DISCUSSION: The PCEHR has the potential to transform the ability of patients to actively engage in their own healthcare, and to enable the emerging partnership model of health and healthcare in medicine. The ability to access health information traditionally kept within the closed walls of institutions also raises challenges for the profession, both in the language clinicians choose and the ethical issues raised by the changed roles and responsibilities. CONCLUSIONS: The PCEHR is aimed at connecting all participants and their interventions, and is intended to become a system-wide activity.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.013

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.398 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations113
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Medical Informatics AssociationSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207