Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with chronic illnesses require tools and resources to facilitate self-management. Personal Health Records (PHRs) are a promising option for delivering these tools and resources to patients with chronic illnesses. As such, many organizations are becoming interested in PHR procurement. However, traditional procurement methods may not ensure the system success and adoption. In this study a group of subject matter experts discussed the possibility of converting a paper-based PHR into an electronic tool. These discussions resulted in generation of several important criteria for assessing commercially available PHR solutions and other considerations related to PHR procurement. These considerations should be contemplated and discussed with stakeholders prior to PHR procurement. In order to realize the benefits PHRs, it is imperative that the appropriate selection is made. Prior to purchase commitment, a trial period can prove extremely useful for performing usability analyses and ensuring interoperability. Supplementing traditional procurement methods with these preliminary user evaluations will increase the likelihood that the selected system best matches the needs of users and purchasers. Moreover, the risk of system failure and the risk of limited adoption of the PHR by the public will be reduced as a result of adopting these methods.
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 | 0.120 | 0.234 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.007 |
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".