MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130732899

Designing a model for security requirements of electronic health records in Iran

2009· article· en· W2130732899 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mehrdad Farzandipour, Ahmadi Maryam, Farahnaz Sadoughi, Iraj Karimi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth recordsMedicineDelphi methodInformation securityDelphiMedical emergencyComputer securityBusinessComputer scienceHealth care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Flourishing capacity of information technologies for collecting, storage and transmission unheard of amount of information creates a great deal of concerns for patients. Patients are worried over the access of numerous people to their electronic health records. Objective: To determine the security requirements of electronic health records for Iran. Methods: This descriptive study was carried out in 2007. Security requirements of electronic health records gathered from comparative study performed in Australia, Canada and England countries followed by designing the initial model. The final model was prepared through gathering the information by questionnaire and the use of Delphi Technique. The values under 50 percent were eliminated from the model and those equal or higher than 75 percent added to the model. Findings: The proposed model for Iran includes the requirements for organizing information, information classification, human resources, communication and operation management, and access control security. Conclusion: A comprehensive model of electronic health records security requirements was designed for Iran. The approval of this model by authorities for protecting the electronic health information security is recommended.

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 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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Qazvin University of Medical SciencesSame topicPatient Dignity and PrivacyFrench-language works237,207