What Do Patients Do with Access to Their Medical Records?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to study the phenomenon of patients having access to their own medical records in order to determine the impact on them and on their relationship with their health care providers. We created the Patient Clinical Information System (PatCIS) to interface with the clinical data repository at New York Presbyterian Hospital to allow patients to add to and review their medical data. We also provided educational resources and automated advice programs. We provided access to the system to thirteen subjects over a nineteen-month period and reviewed their activities in the system's usage log. We also collected data via questionnaire and telephone interview. We found that patients varied in their use of the system, from once a month or less to one or more times per day. All patients primarily used the system to review laboratory results. Both they and their physicians believed that use of the system enhanced the patients' understanding of their conditions and improved their communication with their physicians. There were no adverse events encountered during the study.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it