MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102350193 · doi:10.15265/iy-2015-019

Patient-Centred Coordinated Care in Times of Emerging Diseases and Epidemics

2015· review· en· W2102350193 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Cummings, Judith W. Dexheimer, Yang Gong, Stephanie Kennebeck, André Kushniruk, Craig Kuziemsky, Kaija Saranto, Jens Weber, Hiroshi Takeda, Elizabeth M. Borycki

Bibliographic record

VenueYearbook of Medical Informatics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepurposingEmerging technologiesDiseaseOutbreakHealth careCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineComputer scienceData scienceBusinessEngineeringInfectious disease (medical specialty)Political sciencePathologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: In this paper the researchers describe how existing health information technologies (HIT) can be repurposed and new technologies can be innovated to provide patient-centered care to individuals affected by new and emerging diseases. METHODS: The researchers conducted a focused review of the published literature describing how HIT can be used to support safe, patient-centred, coordinated care to patients who are affected by Ebola (an emerging disease). RESULTS: New and emerging diseases present opportunities for repurposing existing technologies and for stimulating the development of new HIT innovation. Innovative technologies may be developed such as new software used for tracking patients during new or emerging disease outbreaks or by repurposing and extending existing technologies so they can be used to support patients, families and health professionals who may have been exposed to a disease. The paper describes the development of new technologies and the repurposing and extension of existing ones (such as electronic health records) using the most recent outbreak of Ebola as an example.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.373 · 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
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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYearbook of Medical InformaticsSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207