MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341484037 · doi:10.18192/riss-ijhs.v5i1.1442

Electronic Health Records: Patient Care Quality

2016· article· en· W2341484037 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rebecca Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue interdisciplinaire des sciences de la santé - Interdisciplinary Journal of Health Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careHealth information technologyQuality (philosophy)Health recordsBusinessInternet privacyInformation technologyElectronic health recordHealth information exchangeInformation exchangePatient portalMedical recordPublic relationsMedical emergencyHealth informationMedicineComputer sciencePolitical scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advancement of technology has led to its integration in widespread fields, heavily impacting areas such as communications. While there is concern that the introduction of information technology into healthcare renders the medical practice impersonal, its implementation has a positive effect on patient care quality. The exchange of health information via an electronic medium, such as the electronic health record (EHR), is known as health information technology (HIT) and has been the focus of many studies. Many supporters of HIT promote the benefits associated with the general rise in technology, such as the increase in convenience and efficiency of information storage; but others are hesitant, often citing privacy and security breaches as primary concerns. Studies show that despite various initial qualms about EHR integration, once the integration is complete, the quality of patient care increases.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.008

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.446 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue interdisciplinaire des sciences de la santé - Interdisciplinary Journal of Health SciencesSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207