HL7 FHIR: An Agile and RESTful approach to healthcare information exchange
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examines the potential for new Health Level 7 (HL7) standard Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR, pronounced “fire”) standard to help achieve healthcare systems interoperability. HL7 messaging standards are widely implemented by the healthcare industry and have been deployed internationally for decades. HL7 Version 2 (“v2”) health information exchange standards are a popular choice of local hospital communities for the exchange of healthcare information, including electronic medical record information. In development for 15 years, HL7 Version 3 (“v3”) was designed to be the successor to Version 2, addressing Version 2's shortcomings. HL7 v3 has been heavily criticized by the industry for being internally inconsistent even in it's own documentation, too complex and expensive to implement in real world systems and has been accused of contributing towards many failed and stalled systems implementations. HL7 is now experimenting with a new approach to the development of standards with FHIR. This research provides a chronicle of the evolution of the HL7 messaging standards, an introduction to HL7 FHIR and a comparative analysis between HL7 FHIR and previous HL7 messaging standards.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".