MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111697481 · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000821

Healthcare information technology and economics

2012· article· en· W2111697481 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas H. Payne, David W. Bates, Eta S. Berner, Elmer V. Bernstam, H. Dominic Covvey, Mark E. Frisse, Thomas Graf, Robert A. Greenes, Edward P. Hoffer, Gilad J. Kuperman, Harold P. Lehmann, Louise Liang, Blackford Middleton, Gilbert S. Omenn, Judy G. Ozbolt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institutes of Health Research
FundersNational Center for Research Resources
KeywordsHealth careEnablingHealth informaticsValue (mathematics)InformaticsHealthcare deliveryHealth Administration InformaticsHealth policyHealth economicsHealthcare systemPublic relationsBusinessMedicinePolitical scienceComputer scienceEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the 2011 American College of Medical Informatics (ACMI) Winter Symposium we studied the overlap between health IT and economics and what leading healthcare delivery organizations are achieving today using IT that might offer paths for the nation to follow for using health IT in healthcare reform. We recognized that health IT by itself can improve health value, but its main contribution to health value may be that it can make possible new care delivery models to achieve much larger value. Health IT is a critically important enabler to fundamental healthcare system changes that may be a way out of our current, severe problem of rising costs and national deficit. We review the current state of healthcare costs, federal health IT stimulus programs, and experiences of several leading organizations, and offer a model for how health IT fits into our health economic future.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.360 · 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
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

Citations53
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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