MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294204025 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-432-9-833

Requirements for Prototyping an Educational Electronic Health Record: Experiences and Future Directions

2014· article· en· W2294204025 on OpenAlexaff
André Kushniruk, Elizabeth M. Borycki, Mu-Hsing Kuo, Eric Parapini, Kendall Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduation (instrument)Health informaticsInformaticsElectronic health recordComputer scienceSoftwareWork (physics)Health recordsEngineering managementMedical educationSoftware engineeringKnowledge managementMultimediaHealth careNursingMedicineEngineeringPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electronic health records and related technologies are being increasingly deployed throughout the world. It is expected that upon graduation health professionals will be able to use these technologies in effective and efficient ways. However, educating health professional students about such technologies has lagged behind. There is a need for software that will allow medical, nursing and health informatics students access to this important software to learn how it works and how to use it effectively. Furthermore, electronic health record educational software that is accessed should provide a range of functions including allowing instructors to build patient cases. Such software should also allow for simulation of a course of a patient's stay and the ability to allow instructors to monitor student use of electronic health records. In this paper we describe our work in developing the requirements for an educational electronic health record to support education about this important technology. We also describe a prototype system being developed based on the requirements gathered.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.410 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207